Re: The rant about browsers
Hi, Mihai Popescu wrote: Go to Windows only then, it is a simple choice. You make me laugh: you don't touch Chromium because it is from Google, but you are using Gmail! I don't like it but it has its uses. In this case I was using it to test because it is a heavily interactive page and does not load ads that may require flash. Show me your study about browsers' stability and resources usage on OSes, please. No, the fact that you are a heavy user doesn't count! I gave a quick comparison about memory usage between Windows and FreeBSD, that was an informal test but still a clue that it is not only a limit problem, but also a resource usage problem This is not an attack against your favourite OS and saying that in certain scenarios an app on windows runs better is not an endorsement for that operating system. It only shows that there is space for improvement. The fact that I am a heavy user is no kind of proof, it was just a mean tosay that I am not an occasional browser user, but that I eran my daly bread with stuff in a browser, so I have experience with the beast. My suspect is that at least on all BSDs, Seamonkey (but surely other browsers too) use more memory. If you add the stricter limits, it's easy. I will perform a better comparison, including linux and write a blog entry about it. It could be a detendent library, it could be gtk, cairo... whatever. A long time ago, on Linux I did run the same version of Mozilla (!) with GTK and with win32 over wine. The latter was faster and used less resources. Riccardo
Re: The rant about browsers
Hi, Chuck Burns wrote: On Monday, August 25, 2014 5:08:36 PM Mihai Popescu wrote: Actually, I can somewhat understand his reaction. Let's not be so quick to judge here. Yes, many windows-primary web browsers -DO- seem to be less-than-capable under Unix. Thanks. I just did a quick and dirty comparison, since I felt similar problems as the original poster, although I experience less crashes, I notice high resource usage. However, is that a problem with Unix? Or is that a problem with the browsers being -first developed- for Windows, and then ported to the other OSs. There are also more restrictions on UNIX than on Windows, so when you - do- exceed the limits on UNIX, apps misbehave because they aren't expecting to be told No. You can't have more RAM because on Windows, they ask for more RAM, they get more RAM. Now, does this mean that windows is better? No. Not really. What it means is, those browsers are not written with limits in mind. That's one thing for sure. However if you add that browsers leek RAM everywhere (even my quick test showed that after a couple of task, turning back to the original page lost a lot of memory) and that in addition the memory usage is higher, it is easy to see that we are worse on Unix than on Windows. What needs to be done is find the leaks and patch the leaks.. OR use browsers that are lighter and/or smarter about their memory usage. Patching the leaks will benefit any OS, perhaps we can work with on upstream. However, getting the same memory usage on Unix as on Windows would be a first step, at least we are no worse when using our favourite BSD! Many mainstream browsers simply require more cpu and RAM than they really should, especially on older systems. I bet all those custom interfaces, like the latest Firefox, do not help. That is why Seamonkey, which is actually a suite, is often quite lighter than Firefox. However, I can still do quite some decent browsing on an aging WinXP laptop with 1G of ram. My FreeBSD machine has twice the RAM and two cores... and feels slower, the OpenBSD machine has about the same spec and problem. Riccardo
Re: The rant about browsers
Do not want to interfare into os discussion. Just want to ask about status of uzbl browser in packages? It was there some time ago. Then disappeared. I use it on my freebsd nodes and find it just perfect for my needs. Best regards all Zoran
Re: The rant about browsers
Hi, I don't like it but it has its uses. In this case I was using it to test because it is a heavily interactive page and does not load ads that may require flash. To test what? A browser? I gave a quick comparison about memory usage between Windows and FreeBSD, that was an informal test but still a clue that it is not only a limit problem, but also a resource usage problem This is OpenBSD list, you know! This is not an attack against your favourite OS and saying that in certain scenarios an app on windows runs better is not an endorsement for that operating system. It only shows that there is space for improvement. Second time, this list is not about Windows! I don't have a 'favorite' OS. The fact that I am a heavy user is no kind of proof, it was just a mean tosay that I am not an occasional browser user, but that I eran my daly bread with stuff in a browser, so I have experience with the beast. Then earn it nice. Do not create monster sites for weak browsers and hardware. Look at the www.openbsd.org pages, please. My suspect is that at least on all BSDs, Seamonkey (but surely other browsers too) use more memory. If you add the stricter limits, it's easy. This is not news, many people are complaining browsers are becoming giants eating your memory. I will perform a better comparison, including linux and write a blog entry about it. Third time, this is not a list about linux. It could be a detendent library, it could be gtk, cairo... whatever. It could be the universe expanding or solar radiation. OR much better, the Schroedinger's cat. A long time ago, on Linux I did run the same version of Mozilla (!) with GTK and with win32 over wine. The latter was faster and used less resources. Fourth time, it's about OpenBSD for OS' sake! Riccardo So, it was a thread about browsers now, and all I was hopping was that some people will step in and offer some mitigations. Do not hijack the thread, please. Your tests are not helpful. I'm available on the email, let's not abuse the list. Thanks.
Re: The rant about browsers
Hi, a rant about browser is almost justified, they are currently the among the worst piece of software installed on your computer. Unfortuantely, with today's Cloud IT scenario, also quite necessary. Most people wrote that it is a memory/CPU issue. The CPU is at most a problem of speed with very complex pages, with lots of AJAX and stuff (or well if you try video). The rest is RAM. Browsers seem to throw it away. Let me share my experience with you. First of all: I use professionally Browsers on windows 7, all the day, usually two/three browsers, dozens of tabs and lots of heavy pages with javascrit/ajax although usually no plugins (flash, etc). They rarely crash, really. Also RAM usage is high, but settles for me around 1.5G even with lots of tabs. Rarely it passes the 2.5G mark (note though: no videos, audio... just using cloud apps all day). On 2014-08-23 16:31:01 +0200 Gregory Edigarov ediga...@qarea.com wrote: I tried: Firefox - bad, bad, bad. It fails 1000 times a day. That's strange. I use Firefox on NetBSD, Mac 10.4 and on Windows 7 and it is a fairly decent browser, although the latest revisions (especially the new interface) . I find it reasonably stable on NetBSD Chromium - it is better, in terms. Yes, it will not fail on the plain place (it is a Russian idiom, which means 'from nothing' or 'from no reason one can observe'), but left for some time it starts to be so slow... was forced to stay away from it too. but after all it is the only browser under OpenBSD that have a working lastpass plugin. (and I need lastpass, if I want to share my passwords between home and job computers) I don't touch it with a pole, it comes from Google and I hate its interface too. Seamonkey - potentially good project. but suffers from the same problems like firefox. although it is fails much much less, the frequency is still unacceptable for me. That is my daily bread browser. I have it on: 1) windows 7, every day for work, 9 hours a day, stable as a rock 2) windows XP, only 1G of ram, for personal browsing, it works well, very well... never crashes and I can even watch YouTube videos, chec Yahoo Mail, Google mail... 3) OpenBSD and FreeBSD the OpenBSD and FreeBSD don't have plugins... but I too get more crashes, even if the machine is lower-spec than the obsolete windows XP machine! They crash on me say every second or third day. I don't think it is openbsd specific, but I may be wrong. If, at least, there are issues with other BSD cousins as well. I know, I should write to upstream mailing lists of the projects I've mentioned above, but before that, I want to know if somebody else is suffering such problems and I am still sure maintatiners of the corresponding ports will do it better than me if they find it is a problem. which problems? besides getting crashes how do you distinguish the different problems? Do you check the core files? I can tell for sure that on OpenBSD and FreeBSD (but linux is not so much better, although i didn't count it in because I have the flash plugin under linux) I have more troubles than on Windows, even Windows XP with 1G of RAM... Do the browsers consume more ram on Unix than on windows? are certain components less stable? I do wonder. I'm on holidays so i don't have access to OpenBSD, but I tried to start seamonkey on Windows XP and FreeBSD: just seamonkey homepage loaded: WinXP: 93.3MB, FreeBSD: 186M (112M res) second tab with google mail open: WinXp 154M, FreeBSD: 314M (224M Res) third tab with my blog open (*): WinXP 221M, FreeBSD: 338M (251M Res) Wow, on FreeBSD (O need to do an OpenBSD and Linux comparison as soon as possible) memory goes away like butter! now I close gmail and the empty tab, just leaving my blog open: WinXP 215M, FreeBSD 331 (248M res) now I hit the homepage button and should be back at the beginning, I wait for it to settle a bit: WinXP: 143M, FreeBSD 318M (237 res) As a further note, in this state top tells me there are 29 threads open! I'm shocked. I'll do further test, there seem to be leaks everywhere, however for some reason on FreeBSD Ram usage is almost twice as high sometimes... so clearly RAM limits get hit earlier. (*) http://multixden.blogspot.com Riccardo
Re: The rant about browsers
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:03 AM, Riccardo Mottola riccardo.mott...@libero.it wrote: Attempting to translate because apparently I enjoy pain... Basically you are saying Windoze XP/7 whatever rock? - Sent from my truly ancient AMD modem via an apparently defective Chromium browser Oh crap it's gonna crash... *poof* j/k
Re: The rant about browsers
Hi, Todd Zimmermann wrote: On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:03 AM, Riccardo Mottola riccardo.mott...@libero.it wrote: Attempting to translate because apparently I enjoy pain... Basically you are saying Windoze XP/7 whatever rock? - Sent from my truly ancient AMD modem via an apparently defective Chromium browser Oh crap it's gonna crash... *poof* j/k I feel your sarcasm, but really if it comes to browser stability and resource usage, then yes... Windows XP/7 are better than my Unix boxen! I'm not speaking about anything else, nor do I say browsing is impossible on BSD. I just make a comparison being a heavy day-work browser user. Riccaardo
Re: The rant about browsers
I feel your sarcasm, but really if it comes to browser stability and resource usage, then yes... Windows XP/7 are better than my Unix boxen! I'm not speaking about anything else, nor do I say browsing is impossible on BSD. I just make a comparison being a heavy day-work browser user. Go to Windows only then, it is a simple choice. You make me laugh: you don't touch Chromium because it is from Google, but you are using Gmail! Show me your study about browsers' stability and resources usage on OSes, please. No, the fact that you are a heavy user doesn't count!
Re: The rant about browsers
On Monday, August 25, 2014 5:08:36 PM Mihai Popescu wrote: I feel your sarcasm, but really if it comes to browser stability and resource usage, then yes... Windows XP/7 are better than my Unix boxen! I'm not speaking about anything else, nor do I say browsing is impossible on BSD. I just make a comparison being a heavy day-work browser user. Go to Windows only then, it is a simple choice. You make me laugh: you don't touch Chromium because it is from Google, but you are using Gmail! Show me your study about browsers' stability and resources usage on OSes, please. No, the fact that you are a heavy user doesn't count! Actually, I can somewhat understand his reaction. Let's not be so quick to judge here. Yes, many windows-primary web browsers -DO- seem to be less-than-capable under Unix. However, is that a problem with Unix? Or is that a problem with the browsers being -first developed- for Windows, and then ported to the other OSs. There are also more restrictions on UNIX than on Windows, so when you - do- exceed the limits on UNIX, apps misbehave because they aren't expecting to be told No. You can't have more RAM because on Windows, they ask for more RAM, they get more RAM. Now, does this mean that windows is better? No. Not really. What it means is, those browsers are not written with limits in mind. What needs to be done is find the leaks and patch the leaks.. OR use browsers that are lighter and/or smarter about their memory usage. For example, even the KDE browser: konqueror, seems to work MUCH faster and lighter on my older laptop, than do either Firefox OR Chromium. This isn't to brag or say KDE is awesome and everything else sucks.. It's more to prove a point. Many mainstream browsers simply require more cpu and RAM than they really should, especially on older systems. The problem isn't with the OS. It's with the apps and with the limits that the user has defined.. The default limits in OpenBSD are great for servers, but for desktop usage and to run modern browsers (among other heavy apps) you need to jack up the limits quite a bit. Just my $0.02USD Chuck Burns
Re: The rant about browsers
ok, how do I put this nicely... To run a modern browser, you need a modern computer. 1.5GB RAM and a celeron processor doesn't cut it. Nick Moving towards a modern computers one will have problems with supported hardware. Maybe some desktops are ok, but what can you do about laptops. There is no documentation and manufactures are pushing all kinds of crazy shits like fake RAID, UEFI, ACPI, etc. New software is pressing for new hardware too. There is a stupid movement for browsers too: W3C approves and is trying to make a strandard for any shit you can bring inside a browser. Developers are following - who would want users to leave because X browser doesn't support Y feature. This rush has only one 'benefit', more money for harware manufacturers' pockets. I let the people with more experience to anticipate and describe the future. Thanks.
The rant about browsers
Hello Everybody. Before anything I want to say big thanks to the developers of OpenBSD, for maintaining it. After some ~10 years of being the loyal OpenBSD user, I never had any problem with OpenBSD itself, besides may be 2 or three times. It is impressive. Every other system I use gives problems from time to time, so I am thanking you, guys, every time I type a command. Now onto the bitter part. For some reason, since, may be, AFAIR 5.2 times, I do not see any browser that is working flawlessly under our loved system. Everything is happened on the same set of sites I use routinely everyday. I tried: Firefox - bad, bad, bad. It fails 1000 times a day. Chromium - it is better, in terms. Yes, it will not fail on the plain place (it is a Russian idiom, which means 'from nothing' or 'from no reason one can observe'), but left for some time it starts to be so slow... was forced to stay away from it too. but after all it is the only browser under OpenBSD that have a working lastpass plugin. (and I need lastpass, if I want to share my passwords between home and job computers) Seamonkey - potentially good project. but suffers from the same problems like firefox. although it is fails much much less, the frequency is still unacceptable for me. I also used xombrero and it was good, but again, from somewhere between 5.2 - 5.3 times it has started to fail with an unacceptable frequency. I know, I should write to upstream mailing lists of the projects I've mentioned above, but before that, I want to know if somebody else is suffering such problems and I am still sure maintatiners of the corresponding ports will do it better than me if they find it is a problem. -- With best regards, Gregory Edigarov dmesg follows: OpenBSD 5.6-current (GENERIC.MP) #340: Fri Aug 22 15:06:09 MDT 2014 dera...@amd64.openbsd.org:/usr/src/sys/arch/amd64/compile/GENERIC.MP real mem = 1568260096 (1495MB) avail mem = 1517772800 (1447MB) mpath0 at root scsibus0 at mpath0: 256 targets mainbus0 at root bios0 at mainbus0: SMBIOS rev. 2.6 @ 0xeb170 (91 entries) bios0: vendor American Megatrends Inc. version 0701 date 07/04/2012 bios0: ASUSTeK COMPUTER INC. P8H61-M2 USB3 acpi0 at bios0: rev 2 acpi0: sleep states S0 S1 S3 S4 S5 acpi0: tables DSDT FACP APIC SSDT MCFG HPET acpi0: wakeup devices PS2K(S4) PS2M(S4) BR20(S3) EUSB(S4) USBE(S4) PEX0(S4) PEX1(S4) PEX3(S4) PEX5(S4) PEX6(S4) PEX7(S4) P0P1(S4) P0P2(S4) P0P3(S4) P0P4(S4) acpitimer0 at acpi0: 3579545 Hz, 24 bits acpimadt0 at acpi0 addr 0xfee0: PC-AT compat cpu0 at mainbus0: apid 0 (boot processor) cpu0: Intel(R) Celeron(R) CPU G530 @ 2.40GHz, 2394.94 MHz cpu0: FPU,VME,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,APIC,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,PSE36,CFLUSH,DS,ACPI,MMX,FXSR,SSE,SSE2,SS,HTT,TM,PBE,SSE3,PCLMUL,DTES64,MWAIT,DS-CPL,VMX,EST,TM2,SSSE3,CX16,xTPR,PDCM,PCID,SSE4.1,SSE4.2,POPCNT,DEADLINE,XSAVE,NXE,LONG,LAHF,PERF,ITSC cpu0: 256KB 64b/line 8-way L2 cache cpu0: smt 0, core 0, package 0 mtrr: Pentium Pro MTRR support, 10 var ranges, 88 fixed ranges cpu0: apic clock running at 99MHz cpu0: mwait min=64, max=64, C-substates=0.2.1.1.0, IBE cpu1 at mainbus0: apid 2 (application processor) cpu1: Intel(R) Celeron(R) CPU G530 @ 2.40GHz, 2394.57 MHz cpu1: FPU,VME,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,APIC,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,PSE36,CFLUSH,DS,ACPI,MMX,FXSR,SSE,SSE2,SS,HTT,TM,PBE,SSE3,PCLMUL,DTES64,MWAIT,DS-CPL,VMX,EST,TM2,SSSE3,CX16,xTPR,PDCM,PCID,SSE4.1,SSE4.2,POPCNT,DEADLINE,XSAVE,NXE,LONG,LAHF,PERF,ITSC cpu1: 256KB 64b/line 8-way L2 cache cpu1: smt 0, core 1, package 0 ioapic0 at mainbus0: apid 0 pa 0xfec0, version 20, 24 pins acpimcfg0 at acpi0 addr 0xe000, bus 0-63 acpihpet0 at acpi0: 14318179 Hz acpiprt0 at acpi0: bus 0 (PCI0) acpiprt1 at acpi0: bus 2 (PEX0) acpiprt2 at acpi0: bus 3 (PEX1) acpiprt3 at acpi0: bus 5 (PEX3) acpiprt4 at acpi0: bus 6 (PEX5) acpiprt5 at acpi0: bus -1 (PEX6) acpiprt6 at acpi0: bus -1 (PEX7) acpiprt7 at acpi0: bus 1 (P0P1) acpiprt8 at acpi0: bus -1 (P0P2) acpiprt9 at acpi0: bus -1 (P0P3) acpiprt10 at acpi0: bus -1 (P0P4) acpicpu0 at acpi0: C3, C2, C1, PSS acpicpu1 at acpi0: C3, C2, C1, PSS acpibtn0 at acpi0: PWRB acpivideo0 at acpi0: GFX0 acpivout0 at acpivideo0: DD02 cpu0: Enhanced SpeedStep 2394 MHz: speeds: 2400, 2300, 2200, 2100, 2000, 1900, 1800, 1700, 1600 MHz pci0 at mainbus0 bus 0 pchb0 at pci0 dev 0 function 0 Intel Core 2G Host rev 0x09 ppb0 at pci0 dev 1 function 0 Intel Core 2G PCIE rev 0x09: msi pci1 at ppb0 bus 1 vga1 at pci0 dev 2 function 0 Intel HD Graphics 2000 rev 0x09 intagp at vga1 not configured inteldrm0 at vga1 drm0 at inteldrm0 drm: Memory usable by graphics device = 2048M inteldrm0: 1280x1024 wsdisplay0 at vga1 mux 1: console (std, vt100 emulation) wsdisplay0: screen 1-5 added (std, vt100 emulation) Intel 6 Series MEI rev 0x04 at pci0 dev 22 function 0 not configured ehci0 at pci0 dev 26 function 0 Intel 6 Series USB rev 0x05: apic 0 int 23 usb0 at ehci0: USB revision 2.0 uhub0 at usb0 Intel EHCI root hub rev
Re: The rant about browsers
On 08/23/14 10:30, Gregory Edigarov wrote: Hello Everybody. Before anything I want to say big thanks to the developers of OpenBSD, for maintaining it. After some ~10 years of being the loyal OpenBSD user, I never had any problem with OpenBSD itself, besides may be 2 or three times. It is impressive. Every other system I use gives problems from time to time, so I am thanking you, guys, every time I type a command. Now onto the bitter part. For some reason, since, may be, AFAIR 5.2 times, I do not see any browser that is working flawlessly under our loved system. Everything is happened on the same set of sites I use routinely everyday. I tried: Firefox - bad, bad, bad. It fails 1000 times a day. On your machine, firefox couldn't be restarted 1000 times a day. (ok, not sure where my sense if irony is today...) ... dmesg follows: OpenBSD 5.6-current (GENERIC.MP) #340: Fri Aug 22 15:06:09 MDT 2014 dera...@amd64.openbsd.org:/usr/src/sys/arch/amd64/compile/GENERIC.MP real mem = 1568260096 (1495MB) avail mem = 1517772800 (1447MB) ... cpu0 at mainbus0: apid 0 (boot processor) cpu0: Intel(R) Celeron(R) CPU G530 @ 2.40GHz, 2394.94 MHz ok, how do I put this nicely... To run a modern browser, you need a modern computer. 1.5GB RAM and a celeron processor doesn't cut it. NOW, that doesn't cause CRASHES, but when you fix the crashes by cranking up your login.conf specs, you will be so far into swap you will wish your browser crashed. Modern browsers leak memory like everyone has 16GB and a quad-core proc, AND restarts their browser several times a day. Look at those same browsers on Windows (their target market), you see the same thing. The difference is, OpenBSD kicks out programs that exceed predefined limits, that's what you are most likely seeing. But most likely, login.conf will fix your crash problem, as I use firefox, Chromium and Thunderbird on my amd64 system (three-core, 4G RAM), and usually get a week or two uptime between shutdowns (because of hitting RAM limits). Nick.
Re: The rant about browsers
23.8.2014 17:31, Gregory Edigarov kirjoitti: Hello Everybody. Before anything I want to say big thanks to the developers of OpenBSD, for maintaining it. After some ~10 years of being the loyal OpenBSD user, I never had any problem with OpenBSD itself, besides may be 2 or three times. It is impressive. Every other system I use gives problems from time to time, so I am thanking you, guys, every time I type a command. Now onto the bitter part. For some reason, since, may be, AFAIR 5.2 times, I do not see any browser that is working flawlessly under our loved system. Everything is happened on the same set of sites I use routinely everyday. I tried: Firefox - bad, bad, bad. It fails 1000 times a day. Chromium - it is better, in terms. Yes, it will not fail on the plain place (it is a Russian idiom, which means 'from nothing' or 'from no reason one can observe'), but left for some time it starts to be so slow... was forced to stay away from it too. but after all it is the only browser under OpenBSD that have a working lastpass plugin. (and I need lastpass, if I want to share my passwords between home and job computers) Seamonkey - potentially good project. but suffers from the same problems like firefox. although it is fails much much less, the frequency is still unacceptable for me. I also used xombrero and it was good, but again, from somewhere between 5.2 - 5.3 times it has started to fail with an unacceptable frequency. I know, I should write to upstream mailing lists of the projects I've mentioned above, but before that, I want to know if somebody else is suffering such problems and I am still sure maintatiners of the corresponding ports will do it better than me if they find it is a problem. -- With best regards, Gregory Edigarov dmesg follows: OpenBSD 5.6-current (GENERIC.MP) #340: Fri Aug 22 15:06:09 MDT 2014 dera...@amd64.openbsd.org:/usr/src/sys/arch/amd64/compile/GENERIC.MP real mem = 1568260096 (1495MB) avail mem = 1517772800 (1447MB) mpath0 at root scsibus0 at mpath0: 256 targets mainbus0 at root bios0 at mainbus0: SMBIOS rev. 2.6 @ 0xeb170 (91 entries) bios0: vendor American Megatrends Inc. version 0701 date 07/04/2012 bios0: ASUSTeK COMPUTER INC. P8H61-M2 USB3 acpi0 at bios0: rev 2 acpi0: sleep states S0 S1 S3 S4 S5 acpi0: tables DSDT FACP APIC SSDT MCFG HPET acpi0: wakeup devices PS2K(S4) PS2M(S4) BR20(S3) EUSB(S4) USBE(S4) PEX0(S4) PEX1(S4) PEX3(S4) PEX5(S4) PEX6(S4) PEX7(S4) P0P1(S4) P0P2(S4) P0P3(S4) P0P4(S4) acpitimer0 at acpi0: 3579545 Hz, 24 bits acpimadt0 at acpi0 addr 0xfee0: PC-AT compat cpu0 at mainbus0: apid 0 (boot processor) cpu0: Intel(R) Celeron(R) CPU G530 @ 2.40GHz, 2394.94 MHz cpu0: FPU,VME,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,APIC,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,PSE36,CFLUSH,DS,ACPI,MMX,FXSR,SSE,SSE2,SS,HTT,TM,PBE,SSE3,PCLMUL,DTES64,MWAIT,DS-CPL,VMX,EST,TM2,SSSE3,CX16,xTPR,PDCM,PCID,SSE4.1,SSE4.2,POPCNT,DEADLINE,XSAVE,NXE,LONG,LAHF,PERF,ITSC cpu0: 256KB 64b/line 8-way L2 cache cpu0: smt 0, core 0, package 0 mtrr: Pentium Pro MTRR support, 10 var ranges, 88 fixed ranges cpu0: apic clock running at 99MHz cpu0: mwait min=64, max=64, C-substates=0.2.1.1.0, IBE cpu1 at mainbus0: apid 2 (application processor) cpu1: Intel(R) Celeron(R) CPU G530 @ 2.40GHz, 2394.57 MHz cpu1: FPU,VME,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,APIC,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,PSE36,CFLUSH,DS,ACPI,MMX,FXSR,SSE,SSE2,SS,HTT,TM,PBE,SSE3,PCLMUL,DTES64,MWAIT,DS-CPL,VMX,EST,TM2,SSSE3,CX16,xTPR,PDCM,PCID,SSE4.1,SSE4.2,POPCNT,DEADLINE,XSAVE,NXE,LONG,LAHF,PERF,ITSC cpu1: 256KB 64b/line 8-way L2 cache cpu1: smt 0, core 1, package 0 ioapic0 at mainbus0: apid 0 pa 0xfec0, version 20, 24 pins acpimcfg0 at acpi0 addr 0xe000, bus 0-63 acpihpet0 at acpi0: 14318179 Hz acpiprt0 at acpi0: bus 0 (PCI0) acpiprt1 at acpi0: bus 2 (PEX0) acpiprt2 at acpi0: bus 3 (PEX1) acpiprt3 at acpi0: bus 5 (PEX3) acpiprt4 at acpi0: bus 6 (PEX5) acpiprt5 at acpi0: bus -1 (PEX6) acpiprt6 at acpi0: bus -1 (PEX7) acpiprt7 at acpi0: bus 1 (P0P1) acpiprt8 at acpi0: bus -1 (P0P2) acpiprt9 at acpi0: bus -1 (P0P3) acpiprt10 at acpi0: bus -1 (P0P4) acpicpu0 at acpi0: C3, C2, C1, PSS acpicpu1 at acpi0: C3, C2, C1, PSS acpibtn0 at acpi0: PWRB acpivideo0 at acpi0: GFX0 acpivout0 at acpivideo0: DD02 cpu0: Enhanced SpeedStep 2394 MHz: speeds: 2400, 2300, 2200, 2100, 2000, 1900, 1800, 1700, 1600 MHz pci0 at mainbus0 bus 0 pchb0 at pci0 dev 0 function 0 Intel Core 2G Host rev 0x09 ppb0 at pci0 dev 1 function 0 Intel Core 2G PCIE rev 0x09: msi pci1 at ppb0 bus 1 vga1 at pci0 dev 2 function 0 Intel HD Graphics 2000 rev 0x09 intagp at vga1 not configured inteldrm0 at vga1 drm0 at inteldrm0 drm: Memory usable by graphics device = 2048M inteldrm0: 1280x1024 wsdisplay0 at vga1 mux 1: console (std, vt100 emulation) wsdisplay0: screen 1-5 added (std, vt100 emulation) Intel 6 Series MEI rev 0x04 at pci0 dev 22 function 0 not configured ehci0 at pci0 dev 26 function 0 Intel 6 Series USB rev 0x05: apic 0 int 23 usb0 at ehci0: USB
Re: The rant about browsers
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Nick Holland n...@holland-consulting.net wrote: On 08/23/14 10:30, Gregory Edigarov wrote: Hello Everybody. Before anything I want to say big thanks to the developers of OpenBSD, for maintaining it. After some ~10 years of being the loyal OpenBSD user, I never had any problem with OpenBSD itself, besides may be 2 or three times. It is impressive. Every other system I use gives problems from time to time, so I am thanking you, guys, every time I type a command. Now onto the bitter part. For some reason, since, may be, AFAIR 5.2 times, I do not see any browser that is working flawlessly under our loved system. Everything is happened on the same set of sites I use routinely everyday. I tried: Firefox - bad, bad, bad. It fails 1000 times a day. On your machine, firefox couldn't be restarted 1000 times a day. (ok, not sure where my sense if irony is today...) ... dmesg follows: OpenBSD 5.6-current (GENERIC.MP) #340: Fri Aug 22 15:06:09 MDT 2014 dera...@amd64.openbsd.org:/usr/src/sys/arch/amd64/compile/GENERIC.MP real mem = 1568260096 (1495MB) avail mem = 1517772800 (1447MB) ... cpu0 at mainbus0: apid 0 (boot processor) cpu0: Intel(R) Celeron(R) CPU G530 @ 2.40GHz, 2394.94 MHz ok, how do I put this nicely... To run a modern browser, you need a modern computer. 1.5GB RAM and a celeron processor doesn't cut it. NOW, that doesn't cause CRASHES, but when you fix the crashes by cranking up your login.conf specs, you will be so far into swap you will wish your browser crashed. Modern browsers leak memory like everyone has 16GB and a quad-core proc, AND restarts their browser several times a day. Look at those same browsers on Windows (their target market), you see the same thing. The difference is, OpenBSD kicks out programs that exceed predefined limits, that's what you are most likely seeing. But most likely, login.conf will fix your crash problem, as I use firefox, Chromium and Thunderbird on my amd64 system (three-core, 4G RAM), and usually get a week or two uptime between shutdowns (because of hitting RAM limits). Nick. +1 That is your problem...memory You will definitely see better performance with more memory. I use Pentium G2020 with 8GB of memory and the performance is good for browsing/occasional video with daily restart. Tweak the follwoing variables in /etc/login.conf datasize-max === 3G datasize-cur === 2G
Re: The rant about browsers
On 08/23/14 19:59, Amit Kulkarni wrote: That is your problem...memory You will definitely see better performance with more memory. I use Pentium G2020 with 8GB of memory and the performance is good for browsing/occasional video with daily restart. Tweak the follwoing variables in /etc/login.conf datasize-max === 3G datasize-cur === 2G I'm going to say something but not sure if it would be seen as a hijacking of the thread, if so, let me know and I'll take it to another thread. I use firefox too and I have never adjusted my datasize yet, never needed too. There is only a few websites that crash it and I don't usually visit those. However I have a different problem. I use firefox over ssh to another user on the same system. I do this because I don't want a would-be attacker to get to sensitive files such as my ssh keys. Now this setup runs pretty good, except at one point and perhaps someone can look into this for me. When I control-f for searching a website and enter 3 characters the browser crashes. However it doesn't happen always and it never happens when I run firefox as my own user. Another drawback to my using another user to sandbox firefox is that I cannot copy-paste from browser to another window, not sure if that is related. Anyhow for memory I'm set with 32 GB so that's not the problem in this system. Sincerely, -peter
Re: The rant about browsers
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 08:15:23PM +0200, Peter J. Philipp wrote: However I have a different problem. I use firefox over ssh to another user on the same system. I do this because I don't want a would-be attacker to get to sensitive files such as my ssh keys. Now this setup runs pretty good, except at one point and perhaps someone can look into this for me. When I control-f for searching a website and enter 3 characters the browser crashes. However it doesn't happen always and it never happens when I run firefox as my own user. works for me. Another drawback to my using another user to sandbox firefox is that I cannot copy-paste from browser to another window, not sure if that is related. just select the text, and paste it with the third mouse button (usually the mouse wheel) Anyhow for memory I'm set with 32 GB so that's not the problem in this system. 32 GB RAM? Not bad... berger s.
Re: The rant about browsers
On 23.08.2014. 18:16, Nick Holland wrote: real mem = 1568260096 (1495MB) avail mem = 1517772800 (1447MB) ... cpu0 at mainbus0: apid 0 (boot processor) cpu0: Intel(R) Celeron(R) CPU G530 @ 2.40GHz, 2394.94 MHz ok, how do I put this nicely... To run a modern browser, you need a modern computer. 1.5GB RAM and a celeron processor doesn't cut it. NOW, that doesn't cause CRASHES, but when you fix the crashes by cranking up your login.conf specs, you will be so far into swap you will wish your browser crashed. Well, nowadays one can get a very fast CPU and lot of RAM cheaply, but that does not mean all of this is necessary in order to just browse the web. From time to time, I must use a 12-year old Pentium 4 Northwood, 1.8 GHz, 512 kB cache with 512 MB RAM, it has Windows XP installed and is quite usable with modern web browsers. Until recently, I also regularly used an Athlon64 Venice, 2.0 GHz, 1 MB cache and 1 GB RAM under Linux, and it was usable even with many tabs/sites open. The only problem was Adobe flash Linux plugin, which was for some reason slower than its Windows counterpart. Current Pentiums and Celerons (such as this G530) are based on Core i architecture, have more than one core, and are much faster than the two mentioned processors. 1.5 GB RAM is also _a lot of memory_, regardless how easy is to get more today. The point is: It should work just fine. Just raise the OS memory limits.
