Is Firefox Doomed?

I hate firefox, I really don't know what people see in it. I don't use it very often but when I do it never fails to remind be why I use Opera. I'll even take IE over firefox.
 
I haven't like FF much since version 4. But I still use it because of it's simplicity. I'm thinking of going back to 3.6, especially after they force auto-updates.
 
wolfman3k5 said:
Nightly builds != STABLE RELEASE!!!

I know about 64bit FireFox, and it seems fast because now it can allocate more than 2GB Ram for its own process, which is a 32bit limitation. The other problems remain do, like a single tab being able to crash all the other ones, or if someone is deviant enough, they can create a PHP script that when loaded can snoop on the other threads.

Let me dumb it down one more time: a process is a bundle of threads which share the same memory pool (same buffer). Each tab is run o a thread. Threads don't have their own memory, and a single process is ran on a single core (because of the memory sharing for the threads). So FireFox can take advantage of HyperThreading, but not of multiple cores.

Mozilla will fix this performance limitation and security, the question is how long we'll have to wait. In the meantime, for the rest of us who aren't so ignorant there are at least a couple of alternatives like Opera or Chrome.
Click to expand...
You don't need to dumb it down for me as I already understand it.

Perhaps I need to dumb it down for you, however: the FACT remains that Nightly is stable on my system and FASTER than Chrome on my system. This is not something that is up for debate.
 
Chimel said:
I set Chrome as my default browser for a week last month, and the equivalent add-ons or built-in features for blocking ads or scripts are nowhere as fully fledged and usable as Addblocker Plus and NoScript for Firefox. I had to revert back to Firefox because web browsing became more like watching ads on TV on some sites, even with these add-ons. OK, I'm exaggerating a bit, but you get the drill.


Firefox runs perfectly fine on my computers, fast with no crash, and I even disabled the sandboxing plugin-container.exe. It actually has a lower memory footprint than Chrome, a much lower one in version 8, maybe precisely because of the shared memory. Although I'm pretty sure sharing memory is not an attribute of monoprocess apps: If you ever counted, there are more Chrome threads than tabs, so some of these threads must be dedicated to shared browsing features, like the HTML engine and so forth.
Yesterday I actually changed my default browser to Firefox 64-bit (Chrome has no working 64-bit browser), it's a version 11 beta and pretty stable from all I could throw at it (Flash, simultaneous downloads, normal browsing). It even got all my add-ons, so it looks like they're already available in 64-bit or Mozilla implemented some sort of 32-64-bit interface because they're working fine. I wish I could say the same for Windows Media Player, for which even Microsoft add-ons such as Live Messenger are not available in 64-bit flavor.

Now I'm sure Firefox also has its weak points, but for my usage, it's really the best browsing experience I have encountered so far. And I have also tried Safari and Opera, still use them from time to time to debug some web pages.


It was proven faster, by at least 10% according to some article from a few months ago.


That couldn't be farther from the truth, Intel Hyperthreading was introduced around the same time as the Core Duo processors, precisely so that monoprocess apps could easily be optimized on multiple cores. It didn't lead to a flurry of apps switching to multiprocess architecture. You can see Firefox spike on several cores in Windows Task Manager. It would have been called Dualthreading if it was based on the number of possible threads per core. I hope we'll get more than 2 threads per core on desktop CPUs eventually.
Click to expand...


I'm running Waterfox 8.0.1 (x64) right now, and it runs perfectly fine. It's a stable release do, not a nightly build. If you're going to comment on my statements, then please don't take them out of context. I see no point in trying to make my point again and again, as it seems to me that there is always someone who will post something just to get some attention. Been around computers and software development since 1991, and that's a long time in IT history.

Hyperthreading was introduced to hide the latency in the Pentium 4 pipeline.
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper-threading):
The hyper-threading technology found its roots in Digital Equipment Corporation[3] but was brought to the market by Intel. Hyper-Threading was first introduced in the Foster MP-based Xeon in March 2002. It appeared on the 3.06 GHz Northwood-based Pentium 4 in the same year, and then appeared in every Pentium 4 HT, Pentium 4 Extreme Edition and Pentium Extreme Edition processor.

The Core micro-architecture was introduced in 2006, and was based on the older Pentium III micro-architecture, which has its roots in the Pentium Pro, which was a 200Mhz CPU that never really took off.

Now, lets see how threads differ from processes:
Threads differ from traditional multitasking operating system processes in that:

  • processes are typically independent, while threads exist as subsets of a process
  • processes carry considerably more state information than threads, whereas multiple threads within a process share process state as well as memory and other resources
  • processes have separate address spaces, whereas threads share their address space
  • processes interact only through system-provided inter-process communication mechanisms
  • Context switching between threads in the same process is typically faster than context switching between processes.
So while multiple threads in the same process can take advantage of multiple CPUs, it is up to the software developer how they accomplish that. My original point was that on a CPU with Hyperthreading the developer doesn't have to put almost no effort into optimizing his application for multi core processing, because the Hyperthreading mechanism will take care of that for him. On a multi core (multi CPU) system, either the OS scheduler takes care of how threads are allocated, or the application can override that. Of course, with FireFox the per core or per CPU allocation of threads is left up to the OS, so naturally, the Windows scheduler for example tends to run one process per core (or per CPU) at any given time, and with that, all threads that belong to that process, on the same core (or CPU). When this happens, a you can all probably see how this can be a security concern. For this reason Google for example made Chrome a multi process browser from the ground up.


That being said, I still like FireFox. I've downloaded Waterfox 64bit and so far I love it. The difference is that Waterfox is based on FireFox stable releases, not on nightly builds. All my extensions like FireBug, Drupal for FireBug, Flag Fox and so on work just fine. If anyone wants a stable 64 bit FireFox, here is the download link: http://waterfoxproj.sourceforge.net/


Waterfox keeps up with the latest updates, so their current version is 8.0.1.
 
i switched to Chrome once I got an Android phone, while the integration still is not there, it is getting better
 
BababooeyHTJ said:
I hate firefox, I really don't know what people see in it. I don't use it very often but when I do it never fails to remind be why I use Opera. I'll even take IE over firefox.
Click to expand...

Tell us what you hate about it. Saying I hate something with no reasons why is such BS.
 
Yobbles said:
Tell us what you hate about it. Saying I hate something with no reasons why is such BS.
Click to expand...

Out of IE, Firefox, and Opera I have probably used firefox the least yet I've probably seen it crash the most on more than one pc. Just before I wroth that it failed with a download with some error about disk space. Another thing that I've never had happen with Opera or IE.
 
wolfman3k5 said:
If you're going to comment on my statements, then please don't take them out of context.
Click to expand...
I was commenting on your statement in context. You said that "Nightly builds != STABLE RELEASE!!!", I am merely saying that even though alpha or beta builds are by definition not the final release, they seem quite stable (as in "not crashing" to me), let alone the crashes, running slow, or running "like shit" that you mentioned and that I never experienced. It's really not nearly as bad. If there's any bad at all.

wolfman3k5 said:
Been around computers and software development since 1991, and that's a long time in IT history.
Click to expand...
Well I created my first IT company at 22 in 1986, so I beat you right there if you want to go this way... ^-^
No need to cite Wikipedia, I lived hyperthreading, re-read wiki last night and I am a contributor.
All I know is that Firefox does work on multiple cores.
I am pretty sure Mozilla would also start on a multiprocess architecture if they were starting from scratch now, but they inherited the Netscape source code from the 90s, long before the days of multicore and hyperthreading. They'll get there eventually, once all apps and games run in the cloud by default.
 
wolfman3k5 said:
Hyperthreading mechanism will take care of that for him.[/B] On a multi core (multi CPU) system, either the OS scheduler takes care of how threads are allocated, or the application can override that. Of course, with FireFox the per core or per CPU allocation of threads is left up to the OS, so naturally, the Windows scheduler for example tends to run one process per core (or per CPU) at any given time, and with that, all threads that belong to that process, on the same core (or CPU). When this happens, a you can all probably see how this can be a security concern. For this reason Google for example made Chrome a multi process browser from the ground up.
.
Click to expand...

Did you even read the wiki link you posted? As far as apps are concerned, they see a logical processor the same as a physical core (unless the app was developed with HT in mind). Applications need to be optimized for HT just like they need to be for a multicore processor, if you see a performance gain with HT then you will see a performance improvement from more cores. The OS does know the difference (XP and newer AFAIK) however and schedules threads accordingly.

This is a good explanation on how HT works http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2002/10/hyperthreading.ars/1

This is from the link I posted "From an OS and user perspective, a simultaneously multithreaded processor is split into two or more logical processors, and threads can be scheduled to execute on any of the logical processors just as they would on either processor of an SMP system"
 
I go back and forth between Firefox and Chrome, but the font seems much worse in FF ever since the 4.0 update. If it was as legible as Chrome's font I'd stick with FF exclusively. Both seem to offer similar performance IMO.
 
Chimel said:
I was commenting on your statement in context. You said that "Nightly builds != STABLE RELEASE!!!", I am merely saying that even though alpha or beta builds are by definition not the final release, they seem quite stable (as in "not crashing" to me), let alone the crashes, running slow, or running "like shit" that you mentioned and that I never experienced. It's really not nearly as bad. If there's any bad at all.


Well I created my first IT company at 22 in 1986, so I beat you right there if you want to go this way... ^-^
No need to cite Wikipedia, I lived hyperthreading, re-read wiki last night and I am a contributor.
All I know is that Firefox does work on multiple cores.
I am pretty sure Mozilla would also start on a multiprocess architecture if they were starting from scratch now, but they inherited the Netscape source code from the 90s, long before the days of multicore and hyperthreading. They'll get there eventually, once all apps and games run in the cloud by default.
Click to expand...

I use FireFox as my primary development tool, and just switched to WaterFox. I use FireFox (WaterFox) because of the development tools that it provides, like FireBug. I open a ton of thabs and windows, and write allot of JavasScript code, most of it being jQuery. So yes, I can see where it slows down or even crashes, and up until now, with WaterFox, I was left with a sour taste in my mouth, because there really isn't anything out there that I can use like FireFox. Lets home that WaterFox won't have any surproises in store for me.

Actually I remember Netscape in the 90's, and the arguments about the old Netscape code-base. The main issue was (and I'm not kidding) that it was written ugly. So it was abandoned in favor of the Mozilla browser. Mozilla was started from scratch. FireFox is based on the old Mozilla browser, so it doesn't share any part of the old Netscape code. The sole purpose of FireFox was to shed some of Mozilla's bloat, and to make development easier. So Mozilla was split into FireFox and Thunderbird. At $100 Mil. / year, they should have the resources to improve FireFox allot more than they are currently.
 
firefox does exactly what I want, how I want it, thanks to a boatload of add-ons, why would I bother changing to a different browser that I would have to adapt to my needs again (if even possible).
 
I have my Opera on a second monitor, with about 20 tabs open- the sites I need to check daily. For media and for anything streaming I use SRWare Iron (a chrome derivative). Firefox and I.e duke it out as 3rd place options. Opera, I.e, and Firefox still give me TDR/nvidia issues from time to time. The only one I have not seen it do that, is Iron. Back on topic however, ffox is middle of the road. Hope it doesn't die.
 
BababooeyHTJ said:
What fucking monopoly? There are quite a few browsers, all of which are more reliable than firefox. Firefox is going to go to shit without Google's money thats for damn sure.
Click to expand...

Was I "fucking" talking to you?

I was replying to this where the person seems all happy at the possible demise of Firefox.

Originally Posted by 4saken View Post
about time. havent used FF in over 4 years. Strictly Chrome and IE.
 
Ah well, the v. 11 x64 nightly did crash on me on closing a YouTube tab, better go back to the x32 official release channel...
 
i love my FF.

having said that, i have chrome installed and use it occasionally.
the accelerated updates have changed a bunch of stuff i'm not thrilled with like the UI tho that's easy enough to fix. wish FF had a *fully* customisable the layout (able to drag an lock menus & toolbars where ever you like). also hope they make FF more 'thread aware'.

besides its faults, the add-ons and extensions make it the preferable browser (adblock, downthemall!, session manager etc).

adblock is just necessary, whenever i load up chrome, i forget what a good job adblock does with firefox (i know chrome has it, just not a good).
trying to read pages with ads 'blinking' and 'flashing' for your attention is beyond annoying. i usually have to reframe the browser window to a thin strip just (to trim out the ad spaces) read the pages.

downthemall, best download manager i ever used.

the recent updates have made FF a bit unstable. doesn't really matter as session manager will reload all your tabs exactly as they were before the crash. that and a list of your previous browsing sessions.
there are a bunch of other extensions but the ones above are the ones i use the most.

the big plus with FF tho not directly related it, MozBackup. as i used both FF & Thunderbird, MozBackup gives one convenient source to backup and restore your FF & Thunderbird profiles.

FF isn't perfect but it doesn't have conflicting interest like IE & Chrome does. it's a browser designed with the users interest at heart. can't say that for MS & Google's software.
 
I dont like the way Chrome is forcing itself on users, being bundles with pretty much every single piece of software in the world, and always popping up on google.com in ie etc. Way too in your face for my liking. It actually switched from Chrome to IE9 because of it.
 
BDS23 said:
I made a conscious decision to use IE9. Maybe it's the word fragmentation that scares me. I don't like the idea of different brands/titles/whatever running in my PC. I prefer sticking with one, and a sprinkle of other brands.
Click to expand...

I hope you're trolling. Oh dear god please be a troll.
 
I have a feeling that Microsoft will start to dump money to make Bing the default search engine & try to prop Firefox.
 
GotNoRice said:
How many people who use Chrome actually made a conscious decision to do so? It pulls every borderline-malware tactic to install itself onto people's computers these days. How much crap is it bundled with?

The thing that is significant about firefox is that the people who use it aren't generally just using whatever browser that came on their computer (IE) or some browser they got tricked into installing (Chrome) but a browser that they actually decided to seek out because they wanted a better alternative.
Click to expand...

I agree on both points.

I'll be sticking with FF for the forseable future. I'm not ready to give up the flexibility that it provides. Besides the privacy concerns with Chrome, the lack of extensions and UI customization also leaves a lot to be desired.
 
wolfman3k5 said:
Also, while Nginx is really nice, it's performance advantage is kind of negated when used in conjunction with PHP-FPM, because PHP-FPM will eat up allot of memory as it makes a copy of itself in the server's RAM every time there is a request. I guess that most seasoned veterans will stick with Apache MPM Worker (and soon many will adopt MPM Event) and mod_fcgid for PHP. Plus, it's easier to work with multiple versions of PHP when used with mod_fcgid. If you have any other questions, please let me know.
Click to expand...

PHP-FPM doesn't eat much ram at all. I have mine respawn after 500 requests with 5 workers. It uses about 50 MB of ram for PHP. BTW Apache is a damn memory hog compared to Nginx. Nginx with 2 worker processes uses about 10MB of ram.
With mod_fcgid, you are still using the PHP daemon the same way, except it isn't as well managed as fpm. My nginx setup connects to php-fpm through FCGI, the difference is the manager is using apache's memory instead of PHP.
 
aphasia said:
FF isn't perfect but it doesn't have conflicting interest like IE & Chrome does. it's a browser designed with the users interest at heart. can't say that for MS & Google's software.
Click to expand...

amen... and that is probably the biggest reason to stick with a true 3rd party open source browser
 
cwaffles said:
PHP-FPM doesn't eat much ram at all. I have mine respawn after 500 requests with 5 workers. It uses about 50 MB of ram for PHP. BTW Apache is a damn memory hog compared to Nginx. Nginx with 2 worker processes uses about 10MB of ram.
With mod_fcgid, you are still using the PHP daemon the same way, except it isn't as well managed as fpm. My nginx setup connects to php-fpm through FCGI, the difference is the manager is using apache's memory instead of PHP.
Click to expand...

How much memory did you allocate to PHP and how much to APC (assuming that you're using APC because it's probably the most stable caching module right now) ?
 
wolfman3k5 said:
How much memory did you allocate to PHP and how much to APC (assuming that you're using APC because it's probably the most stable caching module right now) ?
Click to expand...

APC is using the PHP process right now, I have bothered figuring out how much memory it uses.

Note the below info is from OpenVZ which counts it's ram a bit higher than normal virt tech.

Here is the output for a webserver sitting online for about a month:

Code: 
  PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND
    1 root      15   0  8356  604  572 S    0  0.1   0:03.40 init
 1296 root      18   0  169m 1872 1240 S    0  0.4   0:51.54 php5-fpm
 1370 root      18   0  3952  440  436 S    0  0.1   0:00.00 mysqld_safe
 1490 mysql     15   0  188m 6968 2976 S    0  1.3   5:31.63 mysqld
 1491 root      18   0  3852  516  512 S    0  0.1   0:00.00 logger
 1620 root      18   0 56880 1316 1204 S    0  0.3   0:00.00 nginx
 1621 www-data  15   0 58056 1772  924 S    0  0.3   0:15.70 nginx
 1787 Debian-e  15   0 44144  620  556 S    0  0.1   0:00.59 exim4
 1812 root      15   0 19328  728  672 S    0  0.1   0:06.14 xinetd
29964 www-data  15   0  178m  36m  26m S    0  7.1   0:02.62 php5-fpm
30002 www-data  16   0  187m  41m  23m S    0  8.2   0:01.33 php5-fpm
30010 www-data  15   0  177m  29m  19m S    0  5.7   0:01.45 php5-fpm
30033 root      15   0 23084 1296  996 R    0  0.2   0:00.03 dropbear
 
I find FF to be MUCH slower than Chrome in almost everything that it does. Just my personal findings, but I tried out the new FF a couple months ago after using Chrome for a couple years and it just seemed slow and clunky.
 
cwaffles said:
APC is using the PHP process right now, I have bothered figuring out how much memory it uses.

Note the below info is from OpenVZ which counts it's ram a bit higher than normal virt tech.

Here is the output for a webserver sitting online for about a month:

Code: 
  PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND
    1 root      15   0  8356  604  572 S    0  0.1   0:03.40 init
 1296 root      18   0  169m 1872 1240 S    0  0.4   0:51.54 php5-fpm
 1370 root      18   0  3952  440  436 S    0  0.1   0:00.00 mysqld_safe
 1490 mysql     15   0  188m 6968 2976 S    0  1.3   5:31.63 mysqld
 1491 root      18   0  3852  516  512 S    0  0.1   0:00.00 logger
 1620 root      18   0 56880 1316 1204 S    0  0.3   0:00.00 nginx
 1621 www-data  15   0 58056 1772  924 S    0  0.3   0:15.70 nginx
 1787 Debian-e  15   0 44144  620  556 S    0  0.1   0:00.59 exim4
 1812 root      15   0 19328  728  672 S    0  0.1   0:06.14 xinetd
29964 www-data  15   0  178m  36m  26m S    0  7.1   0:02.62 php5-fpm
30002 www-data  16   0  187m  41m  23m S    0  8.2   0:01.33 php5-fpm
30010 www-data  15   0  177m  29m  19m S    0  5.7   0:01.45 php5-fpm
30033 root      15   0 23084 1296  996 R    0  0.2   0:00.03 dropbear
Click to expand...

Nice:) I have probably misconfigured PHP-FPM so that it was eating up allot of RAM, so I will have to give it another try. Been around Apache and its way of doing things for far too long.

By the way, I have installed Waterfox x64 ( http://waterfoxproj.sourceforge.net/ ) which is FireFox stable compiled for 64-bit, and man does it run circles around FireFox 32 bit. No crashes, no slow downs, and amazingly with tons of tabs and widows open it eats up *shrug* only *shrug* 800MB Ram. It's still allot for any web browser, but at least it works damn well.
 
"Oh noes the world haz been nerfed!
Without FF the world can haz chaos!
Now I'll have to switch to..."

Oh, no wait I never used FF in the first place so I don't care.
 
wolfman3k5 said:
Nice:) I have probably misconfigured PHP-FPM so that it was eating up allot of RAM, so I will have to give it another try. Been around Apache and its way of doing things for far too long.

By the way, I have installed Waterfox x64 ( http://waterfoxproj.sourceforge.net/ ) which is FireFox stable compiled for 64-bit, and man does it run circles around FireFox 32 bit. No crashes, no slow downs, and amazingly with tons of tabs and widows open it eats up *shrug* only *shrug* 800MB Ram. It's still allot for any web browser, but at least it works damn well.
Click to expand...

For firefox, use show my windows and tabs from last time. After that, check the box that says don't load tabs until selected
Meant to say haven't instead of have.

My PHP config:
Code: 
; Choose how the process manager will control the number of child processes.
; Possible Values:
;   static  - a fixed number (pm.max_children) of child processes;
;   dynamic - the number of child processes are set dynamically based on the
;             following directives:
;             pm.max_children      - the maximum number of children that can
;                                    be alive at the same time.
;             pm.start_servers     - the number of children created on startup.
;             pm.min_spare_servers - the minimum number of children in 'idle'
;                                    state (waiting to process). If the number
;                                    of 'idle' processes is less than this
;                                    number then some children will be created.
;             pm.max_spare_servers - the maximum number of children in 'idle'
;                                    state (waiting to process). If the number
;                                    of 'idle' processes is greater than this
;                                    number then some children will be killed.
; Note: This value is mandatory.
pm = dynamic

; The number of child processes to be created when pm is set to 'static' and the
; maximum number of child processes to be created when pm is set to 'dynamic'.
; This value sets the limit on the number of simultaneous requests that will be
; served. Equivalent to the ApacheMaxClients directive with mpm_prefork.
; Equivalent to the PHP_FCGI_CHILDREN environment variable in the original PHP
; CGI.
; Note: Used when pm is set to either 'static' or 'dynamic'
; Note: This value is mandatory.
pm.max_children = 5

; The number of child processes created on startup.
; Note: Used only when pm is set to 'dynamic'
; Default Value: min_spare_servers + (max_spare_servers - min_spare_servers) / 2
pm.start_servers = 2

; The desired minimum number of idle server processes.
; Note: Used only when pm is set to 'dynamic'
; Note: Mandatory when pm is set to 'dynamic'
pm.min_spare_servers = 2

; The desired maximum number of idle server processes.
; Note: Used only when pm is set to 'dynamic'
; Note: Mandatory when pm is set to 'dynamic'
pm.max_spare_servers = 3
 
; The number of requests each child process should execute before respawning.
; This can be useful to work around memory leaks in 3rd party libraries. For
; endless request processing specify '0'. Equivalent to PHP_FCGI_MAX_REQUESTS.
; Default Value: 0
pm.max_requests = 500

; The URI to view the FPM status page. If this value is not set, no URI will be
; recognized as a status page. By default, the status page shows the following
; information:
;   accepted conn        - the number of request accepted by the pool;
;   pool                 - the name of the pool;
;   process manager      - static or dynamic;
;   idle processes       - the number of idle processes;
;   active processes     - the number of active processes;
;   total processes      - the number of idle + active processes.
;   max children reached - number of times, the process limit has been reached,
;                          when pm tries to start more children (works only for
;                          pm 'dynamic')
 
I've tried Chrome several times now, and I always go back to Firefox. I'm not happy about the rapid release idea, but whatever....as long as the extensions still work from version to version, I generally don't have a problem with it.

Chrome still doesn't have a perfect match to Firefox's ABP and that's reportedly because the source code in Chrome doesn't allow it. Even if they cut development of Firefox, I'm still going to stick with it. I'll keep using the last stable release and the last stable release of the extensions I use.
 
GotNoRice said:
How many people who use Chrome actually made a conscious decision to do so? It pulls every borderline-malware tactic to install itself onto people's computers these days. How much crap is it bundled with?
Click to expand...

Huh?

I've never seen a Chrome "trick install", and whenever I've installed it, it's never been bundled with anything.

I like it. it's a solid and secure browser that is surprisingly fast on all systems I've used it on.
 
lollerwaffle said:
I hope you're trolling. Oh dear god please be a troll.
Click to expand...

why would it be a troll? IE8/9 w/o question are extremely good browsers. At this point it would only be a matter of preference between chrome/ie9 rather than any other reason.
 
cwaffles said:
For firefox, use show my windows and tabs from last time. After that, check the box that says don't load tabs until selected
Meant to say haven't instead of have.

My PHP config:
Code: 
; Choose how the process manager will control the number of child processes.
; Possible Values:
;   static  - a fixed number (pm.max_children) of child processes;
;   dynamic - the number of child processes are set dynamically based on the
;             following directives:
;             pm.max_children      - the maximum number of children that can
;                                    be alive at the same time.
;             pm.start_servers     - the number of children created on startup.
;             pm.min_spare_servers - the minimum number of children in 'idle'
;                                    state (waiting to process). If the number
;                                    of 'idle' processes is less than this
;                                    number then some children will be created.
;             pm.max_spare_servers - the maximum number of children in 'idle'
;                                    state (waiting to process). If the number
;                                    of 'idle' processes is greater than this
;                                    number then some children will be killed.
; Note: This value is mandatory.
pm = dynamic

; The number of child processes to be created when pm is set to 'static' and the
; maximum number of child processes to be created when pm is set to 'dynamic'.
; This value sets the limit on the number of simultaneous requests that will be
; served. Equivalent to the ApacheMaxClients directive with mpm_prefork.
; Equivalent to the PHP_FCGI_CHILDREN environment variable in the original PHP
; CGI.
; Note: Used when pm is set to either 'static' or 'dynamic'
; Note: This value is mandatory.
pm.max_children = 5

; The number of child processes created on startup.
; Note: Used only when pm is set to 'dynamic'
; Default Value: min_spare_servers + (max_spare_servers - min_spare_servers) / 2
pm.start_servers = 2

; The desired minimum number of idle server processes.
; Note: Used only when pm is set to 'dynamic'
; Note: Mandatory when pm is set to 'dynamic'
pm.min_spare_servers = 2

; The desired maximum number of idle server processes.
; Note: Used only when pm is set to 'dynamic'
; Note: Mandatory when pm is set to 'dynamic'
pm.max_spare_servers = 3
 
; The number of requests each child process should execute before respawning.
; This can be useful to work around memory leaks in 3rd party libraries. For
; endless request processing specify '0'. Equivalent to PHP_FCGI_MAX_REQUESTS.
; Default Value: 0
pm.max_requests = 500

; The URI to view the FPM status page. If this value is not set, no URI will be
; recognized as a status page. By default, the status page shows the following
; information:
;   accepted conn        - the number of request accepted by the pool;
;   pool                 - the name of the pool;
;   process manager      - static or dynamic;
;   idle processes       - the number of idle processes;
;   active processes     - the number of active processes;
;   total processes      - the number of idle + active processes.
;   max children reached - number of times, the process limit has been reached,
;                          when pm tries to start more children (works only for
;                          pm 'dynamic')
Click to expand...

Thanks allot, I'll make sure that I'll put it to good use ;)
 
4saken said:
why would it be a troll? IE8/9 w/o question are extremely good browsers. At this point it would only be a matter of preference between chrome/ie9 rather than any other reason.
Click to expand...

Call me silly, but after decades of security holes, bugs and crashes I just don't trust anything Microsoft, and try avoiding their products whenever possible.

I still dual boot Windows cause all my games require it and Wine is never the same even when it works.

Most of my browsing is Done in Chromium under Linux Mint.
 
wolfman3k5 said:
Also, while Nginx is really nice, it's performance advantage is kind of negated when used in conjunction with PHP-FPM, because PHP-FPM will eat up allot of memory as it makes a copy of itself in the server's RAM every time there is a request. I guess that most seasoned veterans will stick with Apache MPM Worker (and soon many will adopt MPM Event) and mod_fcgid for PHP. Plus, it's easier to work with multiple versions of PHP when used with mod_fcgid. If you have any other questions, please let me know.
Click to expand...
Yes I agree I have only used nginx for a reverse-proxy or to plainly serve lots of files.

I have had much more luck using lighttpd w/ x-cache when I needed to serve lots of PHP requests.

I agree working with multiple versions of PHP is nice I however have not needed that capability though I can see where in certain cases that is a good advantage, but it's not that much harder in lighttpd you can bind all .php to the php-fcgi package or you can bind certain folders to bind to different things. Depends how it is all setup.
 
4saken said:
about time. havent used FF in over 4 years. Strictly Chrome and IE.
Click to expand...

So it's a good thing to have less choices because you don't use it? I haven't used IE since 2004-5 but I wouldn't want to see it gone. Same goes for Chrome and I don't even think I have it installed right now.

On another note. There are other search engines than google and shit half the time I end up clicking the address bar and type google when I want to use it because I kind of ignore the one built in. If someone really stopped using a browser for that reason alone it would be silly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top