Maybe the older 112, 102, etc. versions used to do this, too, and I
didn't notice, but when I start up firefox 120.0, it starts up 8 other
firefox processes. They all have "-contentproc" on their command line.
Several of those command lines end with " tab" even though firefox only
has 1 "tab" from my standpoint. Maybe that indicates firefox has tabs
it isn't showing?

Yes, all those processes go away when I exit firefox.

What's with all the processes? Is there some setting to say don't do
that, or to reduce the number of such extra processes?

My main reason for asking is that one particular web site I use went
from working well to running ... very ... slowly ... (taking about 4x
as long as it used to take) when I upgraded from 112 to 120, so I'm
looking for possible causes. Other web sites still do OK.

TIA,
-WBE

Winston <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote:

>Maybe the older 112, 102, etc. versions used to do this, too, and I
>didn't notice, but when I start up firefox 120.0, it starts up 8 other
>firefox processes. They all have "-contentproc" on their command line.
>Several of those command lines end with " tab" even though firefox only
>has 1 "tab" from my standpoint. Maybe that indicates firefox has tabs
>it isn't showing?

>Yes, all those processes go away when I exit firefox.

>What's with all the processes? Is there some setting to say don't do
>that, or to reduce the number of such extra processes?

>My main reason for asking is that one particular web site I use went
>from working well to running ... very ... slowly ... (taking about 4x
>as long as it used to take) when I upgraded from 112 to 120, so I'm
>looking for possible causes. Other web sites still do OK.

It's not going to be obvious to the user which process is associated
with which tab. It's all about isolating aspects of what Firefox is
doing from other aspects, so if something freezes up, Firefox won't
crash. This is normal behavior.

On Sat, 16 Dec 2023 21:39:53 -0500, Winston wrote:

> Maybe the older 112, 102, etc. versions used to do this, too, and I
> didn't notice, but when I start up firefox 120.0, it starts up 8 other
> firefox processes. They all have "-contentproc" on their command line.
> Several of those command lines end with " tab" even though firefox only
> has 1 "tab" from my standpoint. Maybe that indicates firefox has tabs
> it isn't showing?
>
> Yes, all those processes go away when I exit firefox.
>
> What's with all the processes? Is there some setting to say don't do
> that, or to reduce the number of such extra processes?
>
> My main reason for asking is that one particular web site I use went
> from working well to running ... very ... slowly ... (taking about 4x
> as long as it used to take) when I upgraded from 112 to 120, so I'm
> looking for possible causes. Other web sites still do OK.

All the big browsers run multiple processes, and have done so for many years.
Firefox has been running multiple processes since version 54 (long before 112).

Firefox: <https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06/firefox-multiple-content-processes/>

Chrome: <https://www.howtogeek.com/124218/why-does-chrome-have-so-many-open-processes/>

MS-Edge: <https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/all/why-do-i-have-so-many-copies-of-edge-running-at/3003e447-45dc-463e-8b25-6d204a4aadb4>

Safari: <https://betanews.com/2010/04/09/the-big-change-coming-to-safari-5-kernel-level-multi-processing/>

General: <https://news.softpedia.com/news/Multi-Processes-in-Browsers-Chrome-Internet-Explorer-Firefox-and-WebKit-140535.shtml>
<https://helgeklein.com/blog/2019/01/modern-multi-process-browser-architecture/>

--
Kind regards
Ralph Fox
🦊

Every miller draws water to his own mill.

I originally asked:
>> Maybe the older 112, 102, etc. versions used to do this, too, and I
>> didn't notice, but when I start up firefox 120.0, it starts up 8 other
>> firefox processes. They all have "-contentproc" on their command line.
>> Several of those command lines end with " tab" even though firefox only
>> has 1 "tab" from my standpoint. Maybe that indicates firefox has tabs
>> it isn't showing?
>>
>> Yes, all those processes go away when I exit firefox.
>>
>> What's with all the processes?

to which Ralph Fox <-rf-nz-@-.invalid> kindly replied:
> All the big browsers run multiple processes, and have done so for many years.
> Firefox has been running multiple processes since version 54 (long before 112).

Hmmm. OK, then it's likely not a #processes difference that caused the
slow down.

> Firefox:
> <https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06/firefox-multiple-content-processes/>

That one was helpful. Thanks! It also contained a link to:

https://medium.com/mozilla-tech/the-search-for-the-goldilocks-browser-and-why-firefox-may-be-just-right-for-you-1f520506aa35

which explained their rationale.

I'm fine with having separate tabs use separate processes. I'm less
sure why I have so many separate processes whose command lines end with
" tab" when firefox has only just started up and has only 1 tab, but
apparently at least some of them are like "spares", in case I open
additional tabs.

The ARStechnica article mentions dom.ipc.processCount. Sure enough,
I found that set to 8.

However, changing it to 3 (at least to test), quitting, and starting
firefox up again, still created 8 sub-processes, not 3, even though a
check of about:config confirmed the change to 3.

Since changing dom.ipc.processCount to 3 didn't work, I tried 1 and 0.
Also no effect.

I also tried changing:
dom.ipc.processCount to 2,
dom.ipc.processCount.web from 4 to 2, and
dom.ipc.processCount.webIsolated from 4 to 2.

That also made no difference: it still started up 8 others, so I put
everything back.

Thanks for the reply! It looks like my first candidate reason for the
slowdown (#subprocesses) isn't what changed.
-WBE

On Sun, 17 Dec 2023 03:42:45 -0500, Winston wrote:

> I'm fine with having separate tabs use separate processes. I'm less
> sure why I have so many separate processes whose command lines end with
> " tab" when firefox has only just started up and has only 1 tab, but
> apparently at least some of them are like "spares", in case I open
> additional tabs.

Look in Firefox's "Process Manager" (about:processes or
"hamburger menu >> More Tools >> Task Manager") to see what
the processes are for. Some are for things other than
additional tabs.

Currently I have one tab open, nine Firefox processes in total,
but just three of those processes are "spares".

Process Manager will also tell you how much CPU each process
is using.

--
Kind regards
Ralph Fox
🦊

He that spares when he is young, may the better spend when he is old.

"Winston" <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote

| Maybe the older 112, 102, etc. versions used to do this, too, and I
| didn't notice, but when I start up firefox 120.0, it starts up 8 other
| firefox processes. They all have "-contentproc" on their command line.
| Several of those command lines end with " tab" even though firefox only
| has 1 "tab" from my standpoint. Maybe that indicates firefox has tabs
| it isn't showing?
|

Just a wild guess, but you might disable prefetching of both
pages and DNS. It would make sense to open new processes
for prefetching, since it's pure idiocy that doesn't help the
current webpage. FF could be preparing several bloated pages
just in case you decide to visit them. It's spyware as well as
being a similar logic to MS Office and IE: If you keep it loaded
in the background then people will think it's not a bloated mess.

Also, have you considered NoScript? A lot of pages now want
to load massive scripts from 6-8 outside locations. Besides
being a privacy and security problem, it's extreme bloat and
holds up the page load. I'm amazed at how well FF, or any
browser, handles these sites. Some are more than 20 MB of
bloated code, yet FF has to try to parse it all in a second or
two.

I'm currently running FF52 on XP. One process. Loads pages
almost instantly once the program gets started. But I can't
say that I've noticed slowness with 115+ on Win7 and Win10.
All of them, however, are running NoScript. All, also, have
prefetching disabled and have the cache size set to about 10MB.
Cache is all but irrelevant these days. Since almost no webpage
is a static file, your browser almost never gets a 304 response.
So there's no sense wasting effort managing the cache.

I previously posted:
>> I'm fine with having separate tabs use separate processes. I'm less
>> sure why I have so many separate processes whose command lines end
>> with " tab" when firefox has only just started up and has only 1 tab,
>> but apparently at least some of them are like "spares", in case I
>> open additional tabs.

to which Ralph Fox <-rf-nz-@-.invalid> kindly replied:
> Look in Firefox's "Process Manager" (about:processes or
> "hamburger menu >> More Tools >> Task Manager") to see what
> the processes are for. Some are for things other than
> additional tabs.

Wow! about:processes was immensely useful! Thanks!

> Currently I have one tab open, nine Firefox processes in total,
> but just three of those processes are "spares".

Same here, I see.

I then determined that dom.ipc.processPrelaunch.fission.number
specifies the number of "Preallocated" processes.

Unfortunately, the experiment of reducing the number of firefox
processes did little to speed up the site that's running slowly,
so testing will continue... (It's always possible that the site
itself changed the same day I upgraded to the new firefox.)

Thanks, folks!
-WBE

I previously asked:
> | Maybe the older 112, 102, etc. versions used to do this, too, and I
> | didn't notice, but when I start up firefox 120.0, it starts up 8 other
> | firefox processes. They all have "-contentproc" on their command line.
> | Several of those command lines end with " tab" even though firefox only
> | has 1 "tab" from my standpoint. Maybe that indicates firefox has tabs
> | it isn't showing?

to which "Newyana2" <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> kindly replied:
> ... you might disable prefetching of both pages and DNS.

It's not a startup issue. I get to its login page just fine, it's
certain complex actions after being logged in that are suddenly much
slower.

> Also, have you considered NoScript?

Unfortunately, I think virtually everything this particular web site
does is done using script, so disabling scripts isn't an option.

> A lot of pages now want to load massive scripts from 6-8 outside
> locations. Besides being a privacy and security problem, it's extreme
> bloat and holds up the page load. I'm amazed at how well FF, or any
> browser, handles these sites. Some are more than 20 MB of bloated
> code, yet FF has to try to parse it all in a second or two.

The script(s) the site is running is/are could well be part or more of
the problem. In this site's case, it's not a case of running its
script(s) before some page is viewable, it's using scripts to perform
actions I request, and doing so involves multiple relevant/appropriate
popups. I'm not sure whether the popups are all the remote site's doing
or whether some popups are firefox's doing.

Thanks,
-WBE

"Winston" <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote

|
| It's not a startup issue. I get to its login page just fine, it's
| certain complex actions after being logged in that are suddenly much
| slower.
| | > Also, have you considered NoScript?
| | Unfortunately, I think virtually everything this particular web site
| does is done using script, so disabling scripts isn't an option.
|

Sorry, I misunderstood. I didn't realize it was one problem site.
I thought you were saying that all pages were slow and too many
processes were running generally. That made me wonder whether
invisible instances might load to prefetch.

On Sun, 17 Dec 2023 20:45:19 -0500, "Newyana2"
<Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>"Winston" <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote
>
>|
>| It's not a startup issue. I get to its login page just fine, it's
>| certain complex actions after being logged in that are suddenly much
>| slower.
>|
>| > Also, have you considered NoScript?
>|
>| Unfortunately, I think virtually everything this particular web site
>| does is done using script, so disabling scripts isn't an option.
>|
>
> Sorry, I misunderstood. I didn't realize it was one problem site.
>I thought you were saying that all pages were slow and too many
>processes were running generally. That made me wonder whether
>invisible instances might load to prefetch.

When my FF starts up I get an instance that shows FF with several old
tabs that have been closed for a loooong time. This disappears quickly
and FF then opens with the proper tabs open on my home page. Is this
what you mean by "invisible instances"? Anything I can do to stop it?
I've already have all the prefetch options disabled.
>

>>>>>>>>>>jetjock<<<<<<<<<<

"jetjock" <jetjock@unkown.com> wrote

| When my FF starts up I get an instance that shows FF with several old
| tabs that have been closed for a loooong time. This disappears quickly
| and FF then opens with the proper tabs open on my home page. Is this
| what you mean by "invisible instances"? Anything I can do to stop it?
| I've already have all the prefetch options disabled.

I was only speculating that prefetch might load whole pages in
the background, in new tabs/windows, rather than just downloading
files. But I don't realy know. I've never seen what you describe, though
I also don't use tabs. I like to have separate windows for separate
pages.

"jetjock" <jetjock@unkown.com> asked:
>> When my FF starts up I get an instance that shows FF with several old
>> tabs that have been closed for a loooong time. This disappears quickly
>> and FF then opens with the proper tabs open on my home page. Is this
>> what you mean by "invisible instances"? Anything I can do to stop it?
>> I've already have all the prefetch options disabled.

to which "Newyana2" <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> replied:
> I was only speculating that prefetch might load whole pages in
> the background, in new tabs/windows, rather than just downloading
> files. But I don't realy know. I've never seen what you describe, though
> I also don't use tabs. I like to have separate windows for separate
> pages.

I also don't recall ever seeing what jetjock described, nor do I know
how to prevent it, but I'll toss out a couple of suggestions:

1) Have a look at about:config. ^F search for settings containing words
like "startup", "resume", or "tabs". Maybe something will look
relevant.

2) It looks like firefox can "sync", so that you can change from device
1 to device 2, or from device 1 now to device 1 later, and pick up
where you left off. If that might be the cause, check your "sync"
settings.

HTH, but low confidence that it will,
-WBE

On Mon, 18 Dec 2023 16:14:36 -0500, "Newyana2"
<Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>. But I don't realy know. I've never seen what you describe, though
>I also don't use tabs. I like to have separate windows for separate
>pages.

Just curious--why? What's the advantage to you of separate windows?

Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:
>Mon, 18 Dec 2023 16:14:36 -0500, Newyana2 <Newyana2@invalid.nospam>:

>>. But I don't realy know. I've never seen what you describe, though
>>I also don't use tabs. I like to have separate windows for separate
>>pages.

>Just curious--why? What's the advantage to you of separate windows?

We've heard from any number of people over the years who dislike tabbed
browsing. If I think of it, while browsing if I encounter a URL for
something unrelated to what I'm reading, I'll open it in a new window to
better organize what I'm doing. But I tend to have too many sites open
at one time anyway.

On Mon, 18 Dec 2023 18:23:38 -0500, Winston
<wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote:

>"jetjock" <jetjock@unkown.com> asked:
>>> When my FF starts up I get an instance that shows FF with several old
>>> tabs that have been closed for a loooong time. This disappears quickly
>>> and FF then opens with the proper tabs open on my home page. Is this
>>> what you mean by "invisible instances"? Anything I can do to stop it?
>>> I've already have all the prefetch options disabled.
>
>to which "Newyana2" <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> replied:
>> I was only speculating that prefetch might load whole pages in
>> the background, in new tabs/windows, rather than just downloading
>> files. But I don't realy know. I've never seen what you describe, though
>> I also don't use tabs. I like to have separate windows for separate
>> pages.
>
>I also don't recall ever seeing what jetjock described, nor do I know
>how to prevent it, but I'll toss out a couple of suggestions:
>
>1) Have a look at about:config. ^F search for settings containing words
> like "startup", "resume", or "tabs". Maybe something will look
> relevant.
>
>2) It looks like firefox can "sync", so that you can change from device
> 1 to device 2, or from device 1 now to device 1 later, and pick up
> where you left off. If that might be the cause, check your "sync"
> settings.
>
>HTH, but low confidence that it will,
> -WBE

I looked at all your suggestions and changed a couple of things, but
none fixed the problem. I did find one thing that intrigued me though.
A setting in about:config: "browser.startup.couldRestoreSession.count"
is set at "2". Every time I change it to "1" and restart FF, it has
changed back to "2".

>>>>>>>>>>jetjock<<<<<<<<<<

"Ken Blake" <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote

>. But I don't realy know. I've never seen what you describe, though
>I also don't use tabs. I like to have separate windows for separate
>pages.

| Just curious--why? What's the advantage to you of separate windows?

I guess it's partly being used to it. It's also more clear
to me to have window icons along the taskbar for all things.
I might use an MDI window for graphic editing where there's
actually a multi-file workspace, but I don't like it otherwise.
With single-use windows I can see what's open. I can see enough
of the window title to see which is which, and when I open too
many windows I can see that and clean things up. I don't like
to keep unnecessary windows open.

It seems that many people these days leave their browser
open with 50-100 tabs, while also leaving their computer always
on. I shut down at least once per day and never leave windows
open that I'm not using. That just seems sloppy and lazy to
me. It can also be a tremendous drain, even beyond the crazy
resources that browsers use these days, if you don't disable
autorefresh. You can end up with 50-100 pages reloading every
few minutes, along with youtube videos, images, etc, for mo
reason at all, which is also a potential security risk.

Part of my approach is just aesthetic. I clean up as I go,
just as I don't leave my kitchen counter strewn with dishes,
crumbs and open bottles.

Newyana2 <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>. . .

> Part of my approach is just aesthetic. I clean up as I go,
>just as I don't leave my kitchen counter strewn with dishes,
>crumbs and open bottles.

Is there evidence of this acceptable level of housekeeping?

On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 13:29:49 -0500, "Newyana2"
<Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>"Ken Blake" <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote
>
>>. But I don't realy know. I've never seen what you describe, though
>>I also don't use tabs. I like to have separate windows for separate
>>pages.
>
>| Just curious--why? What's the advantage to you of separate windows?
>
> I guess it's partly being used to it.

OK, I suspected something like that

>It's also more clear
>to me to have window icons along the taskbar for all things.

We're all different. Not to me. I have too many icons pinned to the
task bar, and I like to have the FireFox icons all in one place,
separate and distinct from the others on the task bar.

>I might use an MDI window for graphic editing where there's
>actually a multi-file workspace, but I don't like it otherwise.
>With single-use windows I can see what's open.

As I can with tabs.

>I can see enough
>of the window title to see which is which, and when I open too
>many windows I can see that and clean things up. I don't like
>to keep unnecessary windows open.

Nor do I. I don't.

> It seems that many people these days leave their browser
>open with 50-100 tabs,

Not me. I normally have between 6 to 12 tabs open, pages I
frequently go to.

>while also leaving their computer always
>on.

That I do. I sit at my computer and use it for most of the day, and I
have a few programs that run automatically every night. I don't want
to take the time to restart it every time I want to use it.

> I shut down at least once per day and never leave windows
>open that I'm not using. That just seems sloppy and lazy to
>me. It can also be a tremendous drain,

Drain? On what? Electricity? Not in my experience.

> even beyond the crazy
>resources that browsers use these days, if you don't disable
>autorefresh. You can end up with 50-100 pages reloading every
>few minutes, along with youtube videos, images, etc, for mo
>reason at all, which is also a potential security risk.

No security issues, as far as I'm concerned.

> Part of my approach is just aesthetic. I clean up as I go,
>just as I don't leave my kitchen counter strewn with dishes,
>crumbs and open bottles.

Nor do I.

"Ken Blake" <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote

|
We're all different. Not to me. I have too many icons pinned to the
task bar, and I like to have the FireFox icons all in one place,
separate and distinct from the others on the task bar.
|

I have maybe 25 shortcuts on the taskbar, but that still leaves
1 foot+ for window icons on my 27" screen. Of course, people
with smaller screens or using laptops don't have so much space.

> I shut down at least once per day and never leave windows
>open that I'm not using. That just seems sloppy and lazy to
>me. It can also be a tremendous drain,

| Drain? On what? Electricity? Not in my experience.

Both electricity and computing power. People frequently come
into these groups complaining that FF is eating up several GB of
RAM. But it never occurs to them to look at what's running... like
50 webpages regularly updating themselves for no reason. I like
to run a tight ship. minimal services. Nothing running that I'm not
actually using. Most people don't even have a firewall, so they
actually have no idea of what's going online and what it's doing.

Obviously it wastes electricity to leave it running overnight.
Maybe not so much that you're worried about the cost, but I
wouldn't leave several 100 watt lightbulbs turned on either,
despite being able to afford it. When I was growing up,
leaving the cellar light on was a crime only exceeded by
leaving the front door open to "heat the whole damn outdoors".
I still remember my mother gravely calling a meeting because,
"Dad said someone left the cellar light on." Then we all had
to look very concerned and present a credible alibi.

As the famous Ken Blake says, we're all different... I do things
the right way. Others have their own preferences. :)

On 12/20/23 10:56 AM, Newyana2 wrote:

> As the famous Ken Blake says, we're all different... I do things
> the right way. Others have their own preferences. :)

Local radio DJ frequently said "That's my opinion; oughta be yours." I
like that too.

--
Cheers, Bev
"Truly, our society's bellyaching sissies are in an elite category.
They are like the Navy SEALS of offendedness. They demonstrate
unmatched skill, dedication, and dexterity in imagining new and
exciting ways to be insulted." --Matt Walsh