Low memory full feature browsers  [Solved]

Message
Author
User avatar
Durhammer
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:07 pm

Re: Low memory full feature browsers

#41 Post by Durhammer »

All right, yet another update. Got rid of Midori and LibreWolf, installed Firefox ESR. Loaded up my minimal two -- Bitwarden and UBlockOrigin (yay -- not the Lite version!). Loaded both browsers with the same 6 tabs (one being the respective "extension" manager), and while the nice thing about FF ESR is that it has good ole' UBO, getting 100/100 on the ad-blocking test site, the memory usage while either active or idling still favors Brave (entering this update now in Brave, the active browser and thus active in the final memory stats):

Code: Select all

=================================
246.3 MiB +  56.3 MiB = 302.5 MiB	brave (15)
464.1 MiB +  92.0 MiB = 556.1 MiB	firefox-esr (14)
=================================
247.5 MiB +  56.3 MiB = 303.9 MiB	brave (15)
450.0 MiB +  92.1 MiB = 542.1 MiB	firefox-esr (14)
=================================
247.3 MiB +  56.3 MiB = 303.6 MiB	brave (15)
451.2 MiB +  92.1 MiB = 543.3 MiB	firefox-esr (14)
=================================
247.4 MiB +  56.4 MiB = 303.8 MiB	brave (15)
451.4 MiB +  92.1 MiB = 543.5 MiB	firefox-esr (14)
=================================
222.7 MiB +  55.2 MiB = 277.9 MiB	brave (15)
445.9 MiB +  90.4 MiB = 536.3 MiB	firefox-esr (1
=================================
225.8 MiB +  60.1 MiB = 285.9 MiB	brave (15)
451.1 MiB +  88.9 MiB = 540.0 MiB	firefox-esr (13)
=================================
294.4 MiB + 102.7 MiB = 397.1 MiB	brave (15)
400.5 MiB +  60.5 MiB = 461.0 MiB	firefox-esr (13)
It's not worth extending this test. I think this eliminates Firefox ESR as a contender as well. Y'all, I'm not trying to sell Brave -- I think it's doing a pretty good job all by itself. I had used it then dismissed it for whatever reasons long ago, but I'm glad I decided to try it out again. My next foray will be to unload the UBlockOrigin Lite extension and just use the built-in Brave filters for a while and see what the memory footprint and usability looks like. Stay tuned!

User avatar
FullScale4Me
Posts: 1160
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2021 11:30 pm

Re: Low memory full feature browsers

#42 Post by FullScale4Me »

Durhammer wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2024 8:50 pm A side note about Ad-blockers -- for one thing, the handwriting is on the wall for UBO's demise. Raymond Hill probably only will keep UBlockOrigin Lite going. My favorite Ad-blocker is Adguard, with its near-perfect ad blocking and its cosmetic massaging, but it's way too big for this 2 GB RAM machine.
Don't forget the zero memory consumed MX Adblock a host file blocker. I wrote a doc for it - MX Settings: Adblock – how does it work?
Michael O'Toole
MX Linux facebook group moderator
Dell OptiPlex 7050 i7-7700, MX Linux 23 Xfce & Win 11 Pro
HP Pavilion P2-1394 i3-2120T, MX Linux 23 Xfce & Win 10 Home
Dell Inspiron N7010 Intel Core i5 M 460, MX Linux 23 Xfce & KDE, Win 10

User avatar
FullScale4Me
Posts: 1160
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2021 11:30 pm

Re: Low memory full feature browsers

#43 Post by FullScale4Me »

Durhammer wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2024 9:10 pm It's not worth extending this test. I think this eliminates Firefox ESR as a contender as well. Y'all, I'm not trying to sell Brave -- I think it's doing a pretty good job all by itself. I had used it then dismissed it for whatever reasons long ago, but I'm glad I decided to try it out again. My next foray will be to unload the UBlockOrigin Lite extension and just use the built-in Brave filters for a while and see what the memory footprint and usability looks like. Stay tuned!

As Jaw Tooth says - 'But wait, there's more!' See Comparison of lightweight web browsers
Michael O'Toole
MX Linux facebook group moderator
Dell OptiPlex 7050 i7-7700, MX Linux 23 Xfce & Win 11 Pro
HP Pavilion P2-1394 i3-2120T, MX Linux 23 Xfce & Win 10 Home
Dell Inspiron N7010 Intel Core i5 M 460, MX Linux 23 Xfce & KDE, Win 10

User avatar
Durhammer
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:07 pm

Re: Low memory full feature browsers

#44 Post by Durhammer »

Thanks, Michael! (@FullScale4Me) I'll have to try the built-in AdBlock, but it's certainly not as fluid to tweak as with built-in browser extensions, where you can click to disable or enable this and that without having to restart the browser altogether. HOWEVER, it might be interesting to try it out with the "little" MX-Viewer browser that is supplied with MX Linux (more later). And while I already had seen the Wikipedia page, I hadn't paid as much attention to it for the "scores" -- looks like Falkon and qutebrowser ought to be tested as well. Thanks again!

First thing I noticed this AM after removing other browsers (Midori, LibreWolf, and -- sigh, 'cause I like it -- Zen), and letting the 'puter just sit there overnight, is that without competition from other large apps (or just other browsers?), Brave does NOT "get out of the way", RAM-wise. It had been taking up gobs of MBs and not freeing up any memory. Not having the above other browsers left to check this notion out, I decided to try out the MX-Viewer. Move over, links2 browser! Well, sorta -- see the RAM usage results. Also for the record, MX-Viewer is s-l-o-w.

I ALSO discovered a small Brave helper (overseer?) that's about the same size as the icewm-session module for IceWM, that I did not previously notice and left out of all the previous test reports. Not that it puts much of a dent in the usage, as it's only around 17 KB. But yes, as I suspected, Bravve starts dropping memory once MX-Viewer gets cranked up. See the test results below. Last note for now (? ;) ), found out last night that the Brave browser "shields" code is written in Rust. Dunno how much of the rest of the browser is, but that supposedly allows Brave to not worry about full Google Manifest V3 implementation. Without further ado, this is what I saw:

Code: Select all

  4.0 KiB +  13.5 KiB =  17.5 KiB	brave-browser-s
473.0 MiB + 135.6 MiB = 608.5 MiB	brave (16)
---------------------------------
  4.0 KiB +  13.5 KiB =  17.5 KiB	brave-browser-s
556.8 MiB + 142.9 MiB = 699.8 MiB	brave (17)
---------------------------------
  4.0 KiB +  13.5 KiB =  17.5 KiB	brave-browser-s
561.4 MiB + 142.8 MiB = 704.1 MiB	brave (17)
---------------------------------
  4.0 KiB +  13.5 KiB =  17.5 KiB	brave-browser-s
561.3 MiB + 142.8 MiB = 704.1 MiB	brave (17)
---------------------------------
  4.0 KiB +  13.5 KiB =  17.5 KiB	brave-browser-s
448.4 MiB + 122.0 MiB = 570.4 MiB	brave (14)
---------------------------------
  4.0 KiB +  13.5 KiB =  17.5 KiB	brave-browser-s
106.5 MiB +  37.4 MiB = 143.9 MiB	QtWebEngineProcess (4)
132.4 MiB +  26.1 MiB = 158.5 MiB	mx-viewer
373.3 MiB +  78.8 MiB = 452.2 MiB	brave (14)
---------------------------------
  4.0 KiB +  13.5 KiB =  17.5 KiB	brave-browser-s
165.1 MiB +  24.5 MiB = 189.6 MiB	mx-viewer
139.2 MiB +  77.4 MiB = 216.6 MiB	QtWebEngineProcess (5)
374.8 MiB +  78.9 MiB = 453.7 MiB	brave (14)
---------------------------------
  4.0 KiB +  12.5 KiB =  16.5 KiB	brave-browser-s
 92.8 MiB +   9.0 MiB = 101.8 MiB	mx-viewer
343.2 MiB +  53.5 MiB = 396.6 MiB	QtWebEngineProcess (7)
387.3 MiB +  51.2 MiB = 438.5 MiB	brave (14)
---------------------------------
  4.0 KiB +  12.5 KiB =  16.5 KiB	brave-browser-s
103.0 MiB +   8.4 MiB = 111.4 MiB	mx-viewer
310.7 MiB +  62.0 MiB = 372.7 MiB	brave (14)
363.9 MiB +  53.4 MiB = 417.4 MiB	QtWebEngineProcess (7)
---------------------------------
  4.0 KiB +  13.5 KiB =  17.5 KiB	brave-browser-s
102.1 MiB +   7.7 MiB = 109.9 MiB	mx-viewer
300.3 MiB +  58.6 MiB = 358.9 MiB	brave (14)
366.0 MiB +  45.2 MiB = 411.2 MiB	QtWebEngineProcess (7)
---------------------------------

User avatar
Durhammer
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:07 pm

Re: Low memory full feature browsers

#45 Post by Durhammer »

FullScale4Me wrote: Thu Oct 17, 2024 12:30 am Don't forget the zero memory consumed MX Adblock a host file blocker. I wrote a doc for it - MX Settings: Adblock – how does it work?
Good job, Michael! Turning on all the available block lists, testing out ole MX-Viewer with it active got its ad-block test score up to a respectable 70! Whole lot better than 39 or so without the hostss file. Doesn't change a thing for Brave with only its Shields Up -- I still get a score of 96 there. But it's useful to have in the arsenal! (And makes me think about setting up a Pi-Hole!) Off to find and test Falkon and qutebrowser....

User avatar
Durhammer
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:07 pm

dRe: Low memory full feature browsers

#46 Post by Durhammer »

Awright ! Got the Falkon browser downloaded and installed -- a somewhat time-consuming process, possibly due to all the KDE (if is, after all, FalKon!) dependencies. I do not see any way to add other extensions, so not being able to even have Bitwarden is a huge negative, though it does have somewhat decent built-in ad-blocking capabilities. When tested all by its lonesome on the adblock-test site, it pegged in at a respectable score of 73 (somewhere along the line, I THOUGHT I saw a 75, but couldn't get back to that place). Adding in the MX Ad-Block hosts file (all available settings) got the score up to 85! Nice!

Like the MX-Viewer, it uses the QtWebEngine, so it's also a bit slow (sorry!), though not as slow as MX-Viewer. Together, they can take up a reasonable chunk of memory, but I do admit, it does a great job of "getting out of the way" when it's idle and there's competition. FWIW, I'm using Brave right now, so it will be larger at the end of the memory test listings. (And NOTE: I did not include the 17-18 KB brave-browser-s module in the report -- just know that it's there.)

Code: Select all

 86.6 MiB +  36.3 MiB = 122.9 MiB	QtWebEngineProcess (4)
358.3 MiB +  23.3 MiB = 381.6 MiB	falkon
383.7 MiB +  49.6 MiB = 433.3 MiB	brave (15)
---------------------------------
 78.7 MiB +  37.6 MiB = 116.3 MiB	QtWebEngineProcess (4)
354.9 MiB +  23.6 MiB = 378.5 MiB	falkon
405.8 MiB + 111.8 MiB = 517.6 MiB	brave (16)
---------------------------------
 51.0 MiB +   7.6 MiB =  58.6 MiB	QtWebEngineProcess (4)
 62.8 MiB +   8.9 MiB =  71.6 MiB	falkon
287.6 MiB +  67.4 MiB = 355.1 MiB	brave (16)
---------------------------------
 53.0 MiB +   8.1 MiB =  61.0 MiB	QtWebEngineProcess (4)
 69.5 MiB +   7.8 MiB =  77.3 MiB	falkon
277.6 MiB +  69.2 MiB = 346.7 MiB	brave (16)
---------------------------------
177.1 MiB +  14.3 MiB = 191.3 MiB	falkon
177.1 MiB +  69.1 MiB = 246.1 MiB	QtWebEngineProcess (6)
222.6 MiB +  65.7 MiB = 288.3 MiB	brave (15)
---------------------------------
100.1 MiB +   9.1 MiB = 109.2 MiB	falkon
230.3 MiB +  37.7 MiB = 268.0 MiB	QtWebEngineProcess (8)
362.9 MiB + 124.4 MiB = 487.3 MiB	brave (16)
---------------------------------
100.3 MiB +   9.3 MiB = 109.6 MiB	falkon
225.6 MiB +  37.6 MiB = 263.1 MiB	QtWebEngineProcess (8)
367.7 MiB + 120.9 MiB = 488.5 MiB	brave (16)
---------------------------------
Yes, Falkon's memory footprint is quite commendable. However, for a few MB more with Brave's footprint, and with Brave being able to add Bitwarden, AND have a better ad-blocking score (with or without the hosts file), Brave wins hands down. Beef up Falkon's builtin ad-blocking capabilities and allow at least Bitwarden password manager (or another, even), and it's a good contender. Next up -- qutebrowser....

User avatar
Durhammer
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:07 pm

Re: Low memory full feature browsers

#47 Post by Durhammer »

I apologize if this offends any fans of qutebrowser, but it ain't worth the time. It's got a really, really, really strange interface that relies on you remembering the key combinations. I couldn't figure out how to go back to previous pages, and navigating to new ones is a PITA (type "o", enter the URL). I don't even want to know if it supports any extensions, 'cause (1) I suspect it doesn't and (2) won't be using it anyway. Without the MX-AdBlock hosts file, it scored the expected ad-block tester score of 39. WITH the MX-AdBlock hosts file, it only got up to 68. Add to that the fact that it's not particularly frugal of the memory usage, and I deem it even below the lowly MX-Viewer!

Code: Select all

105.2 MiB +  38.9 MiB = 144.1 MiB	QtWebEngineProcess (5)
303.1 MiB +  31.2 MiB = 334.3 MiB	qutebrowser
382.7 MiB +  77.9 MiB = 460.7 MiB	brave (16)
That;s right, I didn't see that it needed an extensive memory test. Low functionality, low ad-block score, meh memory. Outta here!

Next?

User avatar
Durhammer
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:07 pm

Re: Low memory full feature browsers

#48 Post by Durhammer »

BY THE WAY, for the last couple of browser tests, I chose Falkon and qutebrowser specifically because they appeared to have the two highest compatibility scores (acid3 and HTML5, plus others) in the Wikipedia page ("Comparison of Lightweight Web Browsers") pointed to by @FullScale4Me . K-meleon sorta looked good, but it's a Windows thing, so would have to be run under Wine. Fuggedaboutit!

User avatar
Durhammer
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:07 pm

Re: Low memory full feature browsers  [Solved]

#49 Post by Durhammer »

Allright, lite full featured browser fans, I'm done here. Thanks for all the suggestions. I hope I tried each in good faith and with due dilligence.

In the end, I'm satisfied with discovering that Brave Browser is pretty durn good overall. It's not the lightest browser out there, but it's lighter than most of the big guns, and it runs rings around them, performance-wise and adblock-wise. I don't know how much of the browser other than the "Shields" is written in Rust, but even if it's just that, I'm a big fan. (Rust is going to rule! When Redox OS is mature, I think it will be a great "Linux" like OS, but that's a different topic altogether -- but watch for it!)

Again, thanks for all the ideas, suggestions, and so forth. If you don't believe me on my choice, do your own damn tests! :-)

User avatar
Durhammer
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:07 pm

Re: Low memory full feature browsers

#50 Post by Durhammer »

One final (?) note: I had left the MX-AdBlock hosts file in place, and found out that I couldn't browse Reddit posts because of it (probably the social media filters). Since it doesn't add anything to Brave's "shielding", I undid it and now can see Reddit stuff again.

Post Reply

Return to “Chat”