librelist archives

« back to archive

poor conkeror performance

poor conkeror performance

From:
Sturm Mabie
Date:
2014-01-28 @ 19:39
Hey,

I'm wondering why conkeror's performance is so poor. I have a Haswell i7
cpu with plenty of ram and am observing pretty abysmal performance, much
slower than Firefox.

What might be causing this? What parts of conkeror's code base is known to
have performance issues? I would be interested in submitting patches to
alleviate such problems, but currently am not particularly familiar with
the code base. Just looking for pointers on what I could do to bring
conkeror's performance up to par with Firefox.

Thanks! (and Btw, conkeror is very awesome! Besides the performance, the
browser is quite ideal)

Re: [conkeror] poor conkeror performance

From:
Scott Jaderholm
Date:
2014-01-30 @ 05:08
I have not noticed a performance difference between Conkeror and
Firefox. That said, I do not use Firefox itself very often. Maybe be
more specific about what performance issue you are seeing.

Are you using the same version of Xulrunner/Firefox? As in, are you
comparing Conkeror on Xulrunner/Firefox 26 to Firefox 26? M-x version
should tell you the xulrunner version number you are using.

Do you have the same extensions installed in each? Perhaps try running
with "conkeror -q".
Scott


On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Sturm Mabie <sturm@cryptm.org> wrote:
> Hey,
>
> I'm wondering why conkeror's performance is so poor. I have a Haswell i7 cpu
> with plenty of ram and am observing pretty abysmal performance, much slower
> than Firefox.
>
> What might be causing this? What parts of conkeror's code base is known to
> have performance issues? I would be interested in submitting patches to
> alleviate such problems, but currently am not particularly familiar with the
> code base. Just looking for pointers on what I could do to bring conkeror's
> performance up to par with Firefox.
>
> Thanks! (and Btw, conkeror is very awesome! Besides the performance, the
> browser is quite ideal)

Re: [conkeror] poor conkeror performance

From:
Sturm Mabie
Date:
2014-01-31 @ 02:41
I'm using xulrunner-25 and firefox 26. I've noticed that the main
difference is that while page elements are loading, firefox can
smoothly scroll through the page, while conkeror chokes. Is the
threading model of conkeror different to that of firefox? Maybe more
async loading is needed? (just speaking out of my ass, have no idea of
the internal architecture of conkeror). I only have ad-block plus
installed on each, albeit a much older version of the extension for
conkeror.

On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 12:08 AM, Scott Jaderholm <jaderholm@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have not noticed a performance difference between Conkeror and
> Firefox. That said, I do not use Firefox itself very often. Maybe be
> more specific about what performance issue you are seeing.
>
> Are you using the same version of Xulrunner/Firefox? As in, are you
> comparing Conkeror on Xulrunner/Firefox 26 to Firefox 26? M-x version
> should tell you the xulrunner version number you are using.
>
> Do you have the same extensions installed in each? Perhaps try running
> with "conkeror -q".
> Scott
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Sturm Mabie <sturm@cryptm.org> wrote:
>> Hey,
>>
>> I'm wondering why conkeror's performance is so poor. I have a Haswell i7 cpu
>> with plenty of ram and am observing pretty abysmal performance, much slower
>> than Firefox.
>>
>> What might be causing this? What parts of conkeror's code base is known to
>> have performance issues? I would be interested in submitting patches to
>> alleviate such problems, but currently am not particularly familiar with the
>> code base. Just looking for pointers on what I could do to bring conkeror's
>> performance up to par with Firefox.
>>
>> Thanks! (and Btw, conkeror is very awesome! Besides the performance, the
>> browser is quite ideal)



-- 
Sturm Mabie
cryptm.org/~sturm

Re: [conkeror] poor conkeror performance

From:
Sturm Mabie
Date:
2014-01-31 @ 03:25
When I run conkeror via the -app firefox switch, the same performance
problems persist, BTW

On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 9:41 PM, Sturm Mabie <sturm@cryptm.org> wrote:
> I'm using xulrunner-25 and firefox 26. I've noticed that the main
> difference is that while page elements are loading, firefox can
> smoothly scroll through the page, while conkeror chokes. Is the
> threading model of conkeror different to that of firefox? Maybe more
> async loading is needed? (just speaking out of my ass, have no idea of
> the internal architecture of conkeror). I only have ad-block plus
> installed on each, albeit a much older version of the extension for
> conkeror.
>
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 12:08 AM, Scott Jaderholm <jaderholm@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I have not noticed a performance difference between Conkeror and
>> Firefox. That said, I do not use Firefox itself very often. Maybe be
>> more specific about what performance issue you are seeing.
>>
>> Are you using the same version of Xulrunner/Firefox? As in, are you
>> comparing Conkeror on Xulrunner/Firefox 26 to Firefox 26? M-x version
>> should tell you the xulrunner version number you are using.
>>
>> Do you have the same extensions installed in each? Perhaps try running
>> with "conkeror -q".
>> Scott
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Sturm Mabie <sturm@cryptm.org> wrote:
>>> Hey,
>>>
>>> I'm wondering why conkeror's performance is so poor. I have a Haswell i7 cpu
>>> with plenty of ram and am observing pretty abysmal performance, much slower
>>> than Firefox.
>>>
>>> What might be causing this? What parts of conkeror's code base is known to
>>> have performance issues? I would be interested in submitting patches to
>>> alleviate such problems, but currently am not particularly familiar with the
>>> code base. Just looking for pointers on what I could do to bring conkeror's
>>> performance up to par with Firefox.
>>>
>>> Thanks! (and Btw, conkeror is very awesome! Besides the performance, the
>>> browser is quite ideal)
>
>
>
> --
> Sturm Mabie
> cryptm.org/~sturm



-- 
Sturm Mabie
cryptm.org/~sturm