Palemoon X64 9.1 Memory issue

[rodneyct]

I had a problem with a memory leak on Palemoon 8 and when I upgraded to 9.0 it went away. When I updated to 9.1, the leak re-appeared and I didn't add any add-ons. At start up, it uses 260,000k, after running all day it increases to 1,000,000k . Is there something in the update that would cause this or is it just a coincidence. What can I do to track down/correct this issue.

[satrow]

You should probably create a new profile and boot PM from that. I've had x64 open for over 8 hours now, must have opened in excess of 350 tabs, currently around 50 open and I've not seen as much as a GB in use - my VM usage doesn't even extend to that.

FX/PM safe mode = hold left Shift down while you click the (FX) PM icon and create a new profile from the resulting options window. Once tested for a while, you might want to begin importing some of your old data over - see the info about transferring data across profiles over at MozillaZine.

Add to your new profile with care, you really don't want to import whatever was bugging the old profile.

[Moonchild]

As an aside, the bugfixes imported into Pale Moon 9.1 should have no impact whatsoever on memory allocation. So I agree with Cym here that it may be a profile issue, considering the core for memory management hasn't been changed between 9.0.1 and 9.1.

[rodneyct]

I followed the advice(thx for your help) and it seems to be Adblock Plus was the issue. I haven't had a lot of times to verify, but that is what seems to be affecting the memory. Are there any good alternatives to Adblock of any fixes for it? Thx.

[rodneyct]

I was wrong about the Adblock, after further testing, the only way I could stop the leak was to disable Java. With Java enabled, my memory usage goes up 1,000k every 20 to 30 seconds. Any advice on how to correct this?

[Moonchild]

Apart from disabling the Java plugin unless you need it for a page, there's little you can do.
Java is also a bit of a special case; it's the only plugin that is explicitly excluded from using the out of process plugin container (so it runs in the main palemoon.exe process instead). It's most likely that the 64-bit java plugin has some issues and a memory leak, which is, in all honestly, not really a Pale Moon issue.

[satrow]

Comment: I generally have all plugins but Flash disabled, if i need Java or any other plugin (as I did a very short time ago), I simply enable it, refresh the page/tab that requests/needs it and disable it again afterwards. No browser restart necessary. Same for FX (pretty sure it's the same for IE, I have all the same things disabled there too).

[jaycelou]

I have some problem with Java RE version 7.1 and I downgrade to v6.30, it work fine until now.

BTW, according to my experience, almost all 64 bit application requite more memory than the 32 bit version, like PDF reader, PhotoShop etc.

[satrow]

Update on Java:

Java was updated yesterday, many bugfixes and security holes plugged; 6.31 and 7.3 are the most recent versions. The version checking page there hasn't been updated yet, it still showed 7.1 as being current. (I've yet to notice any bug in the 8 months I've been using 7.x - but I rarely need to enable it.)

Note that you will need to install both the 32 and 64 bit versions if you use 64 bit browsers or Java software.

[gggirlgeek]

I am having the same problem (I'm using 9.2x64.) I have been comparing it to Firefox 9.01 and Firefox 11 (32-bit versions.) I was assuming it's the nature of 64-bit apps since Process Explorer x64 takes 5x the memory as x86 version (which is still only 26Mb, 153mb virtual working set.)

I am new to 64-bit (Win7 Sp1) so just getting to know how things work. I may still switch back to 32-bit with the PAE tweak to use more than 3.5Gb of Ram. I can't BELIEVE the memory and hard disk space 64bit is requiring. I regularly go over 4Gb of ram with just Palemoon, Explorer, and a Pdf reader open (50%+ commit charge with 5Gb pagefile set -- I have 8Gb physical ram installed + 1Gb Gpu.) I've seen 50%+ with Firefox too. Explorer.exe is what gets huge. Palemoon competes with Explorer head-to-head.

Overall though Palemoon x64 is taking 1.2Gb+ Virtual memory (600mb Working set) when Firefox later takes 600mb Virtual with the same tabs open (about 25 tabs.)

I have noticed that Palemoon doesn't seem to be using my GPU the way Firefox does (I normally just glance at my GPU temperature in the system tray (with Speed Fan) to monitor this. With Firefox it heats up to about 43C, with Palemoon it sticks to it's normal 38C. The GPU history in procexp.exe confirms that only dwn.exe is using it at average 1% gpu. Going to post new thread about this.

Waiting for Palemoon x64 v12 to upgrade.

I'm using Process Explorer and the Working Set & Virtual Working Set columns to compare.

[gggirlgeek]

Also, Palemoon seems to take more and more memory when simply browsing in 1 Tab (not opening and closing new tabs.) It get's close to the 1Gb Virtual Working Set I spoke of before, even without multiple tabs open. This doesn't seem normal.

[Moonchild]

Also, Palemoon seems to take more and more memory when simply browsing in 1 Tab (not opening and closing new tabs.) It get's close to the 1Gb Virtual Working Set I spoke of before, even without multiple tabs open. This doesn't seem normal.

It's not normal, no. It means there is a memory leak somewhere, but if it was something specific to Pale Moon's core, it should show up on just about every machine (which it doesn't).

A few things you may want to consider:

• Update your graphics drivers to the latest version available. NVidia drivers in particular have quirks in their 64-bit implementations and have even led to Blue Screens when using Pale Moon x64. Pale Moon x64 will be one of the very few applications, if not the only one, that will talk natively in 64-bit to your video driver for 3D acceleration and as such it's still to be considered untested waters.
• As an alternative, switch to a 32-bit version of Pale Moon. The performance will be comparable to (or with the current maturation level of 64-bit in the Mozilla code base even slightly better than) the 64-bit version. The specific advantages of the native 64-bit version of Pale Moon are quickly negated if you have a conflict at the system driver level (which you may have, considering your reports)

[gggirlgeek]

Oooo! Glad you told me. I'm definitely messing with my Nvidia graphics drivers lately because this is a new build and it's an HTPC. I wouldn't have known the BSOD was from Palemoon if I got one because I'm messing with so much, including my bios.

I don't game at all so I haven't used the 3D drivers much. I did try the 3D vision plugins with Palemoon yesterday on some test videos. No BSOD's thankfully.

I am using the latest (296.10) Nvidia drivers now, but plan on testing the 301.24 beta drivers soon. I will try out Palemoon 32-bit.

Thanks!