trick to make firefox faster than chromium [SOLVED]

cuicui-369 · 2018-05-05 12:24:22

Even tough I change my proxy setting to none, firefox is still slow. I believe it hang on TLS handshaking. In chromium i can easily go from a website to another, but with firefox it take forever to switch. I'm wonder if there is something else I should do to optimize firefox (speed).

Last edited by cuicui-369 (2018-05-06 16:51:04)

WorMzy · 2018-05-05 13:03:49

There's an entire wiki page devoted to tweaking firefox: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Firefox/Tweaks

No idea if it will address your concerns though.

seth · 2018-05-05 13:56:29

The browsers btw. also have vast analysis tools (web inspector and stuff) - so no reason to "believe", just look what's actually slow(er in comparism).

cuicui-369 · 2018-05-05 14:33:23

Great! It seem that firefox is getting faster by the time. Once the website is load for the first time, it got quicker after. A reboot may have help too.

Last edited by cuicui-369 (2018-05-05 14:33:46)

headkase · 2018-05-05 15:22:43

The single biggest thing you can do right now to speed up your network access is to use the new 1.1.1.1 DNS server:

https://1.1.1.1/

loqs · 2018-05-05 15:34:02

@headkase how did you establish the bottleneck was dns resolution?

headkase · 2018-05-05 20:56:18

loqs wrote:

@headkase how did you establish the bottleneck was dns resolution?

I said single biggest thing. Cloudflare's DNS solution is proving to be much faster than an average ISP and even faster than Google DNS and OpenDNS. Since DNS queries are one of the more common operations when you're on the internet it would follow that a faster DNS across many queries on each page would provide an aggregate speedup.

seth · 2018-05-06 06:19:47

Did you try?

cloudflare is maybe 5%-10% faster than your "ordinary" DNS, but browsers do not operate like "query domain #1, do some with the result, query domain #2, do some with the result, ..." but heavily thread network I/O with multiple parrallel connections and while, for the specific case, one (not! me - i don't know!) might argue that chromium does a bit better on this than firefox, it sounds a bit off that FF gets completely stalled by a crappy DNS and chromium doesn't (where for *chrome* i'd also not be surprised if it'd just resort to 8.8.8.8)

I will therefore stress again: do not guess if you can measure.

eschwartz · 2018-05-06 12:09:21

seth wrote:

Did you try?
cloudflare is maybe 5%-10% faster than your "ordinary" DNS, but browsers do not operate like "query domain #1, do some with the result, query domain #2, do some with the result, ..." but heavily thread network I/O with multiple parrallel connections and while, for the specific case, one (not! me - i don't know!) might argue that chromium does a bit better on this than firefox, it sounds a bit off that FF gets completely stalled by a crappy DNS and chromium doesn't (where for *chrome* i'd also not be surprised if it'd just resort to 8.8.8.8)
I will therefore stress again: do not guess if you can measure.

http://hightechforum.org/cloudflares-1- … r-privacy/ ?

I'm quite shocked that normally intelligent people like Arch Linux regulars would fall for this overhyped hilarity. As you say, anyone with a modicum of knowledge about TCP/IP knows that between DNS caching and the download of multi-megabyte webpages, the milliseconds used to resolve DNS are completely negligible. That's without using specialized caching software like dnsmasq, which, since it runs on your own machine, will always, always, always, always be far, far, far, far faster than Cloudflare unless you never use the same website twice in your internet browsing (highly doubtful, most webpages result in dozens of IP connections to the same domain name in just one page load).

This is without getting into the main offense perpetrated by the Cloudflare hype, which is the idea that they're somehow "more privacy" because they don't evilly record your... commonly used IP addresses? unlike your ISP, which apparently sells those like hotcakes. Unlike Google, because Google is automatically evil even when their privacy policy for their DNS service is honestly not scary at all...

Cloudflare, secure? This is the web service that, *by design*, completely renders SSL pointless for a fairly large chunk of the web, given that their whole schtick is literally "We will MiTM everything you do, but if we prevent other people from MiTMing you then that's totally better, also everything you've been told about us MiTMing your traffic is totally a lie, because we're a big company and you can trust us".

http://cryto.net/~joepie91/blog/2016/07 … a-problem/

Slightly more balanced discussion of their MiTM service, which does ignore the implications of a false sense of security, but I *am* biased... https://www.troyhunt.com/cloudflare-ssl … bsolutism/
("If your choice is between literally nothing, and using Cloudflare, stop scaring people into not at least using Cloudflare.")

This is the company which hates Tor, for frankly derpy reasons. https://blog.torproject.org/trouble-cloudflare Oh, but they love security, so surely this is all a lie. Or maybe Tor is the lie!
I'd argue on that merit alone, "literally nothing" is better than Cloudflare, at least for users. It's also more honest, since users know that the service cannot be trusted with data rather than being fooled by Cloudflare into thinking they *can* trust it with their data. Because now users have no way to *enlighten themselves* and seek protection on their own end.

Oh, but you say at least they protect you from everyone other than themselves? Think again... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloudbleed Like heartbleed except instead of critical infrastructure software used by much of the world, it's a glorified CDN (used by far too *much* of the world for what it actually does) that is vulnerable... not that people should be using an inaccurately-marketed CDN for this sort of content, which just goes to show the whole flaw in the basic premise of Cloudflare.

...

Anyone who mentions the word "cloudflare" immediately gets on my "SNR levels just got really low" list. In lots of ways it can be argued to be one of the worst things that ever happened to the modern internet. I'm unsure how their reputation gets to be completely opposite their fairly obvious uselessness. Everything they do can be accomplished in much more transparent *and* secure ways for very little effort.

Last edited by eschwartz (2018-05-06 12:28:26)

Trilby · 2018-05-06 12:40:25

Thanks for the educational rant. I've never had many facts behind my scepticism of cloudfare (and several other modern fad services). I've just avoided them like the plague due to my surprisingly effective heuristic: "sounds like hype, smells like bullshit" (I think this is what used to be called common sense, but today it is exceedingly rare).

Last edited by Trilby (2018-05-06 12:41:10)

Steef435 · 2018-05-06 14:11:16

If I read it correctly, 1.1.1.1 does support DNS over HTTPS though, which if I understand correctly does prevent ISPs from reading DNS requests and answers (apart from the requests to fetch the necessary IPs and certificates to set up the HTTPS request). Google and Mozilla apparently have experimental implementations already (Chromium with their own nameserver, Firefox with Cloudflare's).

EDIT: It would provide decent protection from snooping ISPs (read: my country's "security agency") without the troubles involved with using Tor, for the cost of Cloudflare getting the DNS requests. Then again, Cloudflare *is* the major cause of said Tor troubles, and the DNS requests will end up with Cloudflare which may leak away from there.

Last edited by Steef435 (2018-05-06 14:14:08)

eschwartz · 2018-05-06 14:20:11

Steef435 wrote:

If I read it correctly, 1.1.1.1 does support DNS over HTTPS though, which if I understand correctly does prevent ISPs from reading DNS requests and answers (apart from the requests to fetch the necessary IPs and certificates to set up the HTTPS request). Google and Mozilla apparently have experimental implementations already (Chromium with their own nameserver, Firefox with Cloudflare's).

You then use their internet routing to retrieve the content...

Also DNS over HTTPS isn't about privacy, since any attacker does not care if they cannot read your DNS requests, since they can read the IP address in your packets *after* the IP address.

They do care about manipulating the DNS requests, which DNS over HTTPS protects against because it's encrypted. But then again, DNSSEC does the same thing.

DNS over HTTPS is apparently "faster", but that may just be because ISPs are slow and would continue to be slow even if they offered the sacred grail of DNS over HTTPS.

headkase · 2018-05-06 18:58:59

Eschwartz wrote:

seth wrote:
Did you try?
cloudflare is maybe 5%-10% faster than your "ordinary" DNS, but browsers do not operate like "query domain #1, do some with the result, query domain #2, do some with the result, ..." but heavily thread network I/O with multiple parrallel connections and while, for the specific case, one (not! me - i don't know!) might argue that chromium does a bit better on this than firefox, it sounds a bit off that FF gets completely stalled by a crappy DNS and chromium doesn't (where for *chrome* i'd also not be surprised if it'd just resort to 8.8.8.8)
I will therefore stress again: do not guess if you can measure.
http://hightechforum.org/cloudflares-1- … r-privacy/ ?
I'm quite shocked that normally intelligent people like Arch Linux regulars would fall for this overhyped hilarity. As you say, anyone with a modicum of knowledge about TCP/IP knows that between DNS caching and the download of multi-megabyte webpages, the milliseconds used to resolve DNS are completely negligible. That's without using specialized caching software like dnsmasq, which, since it runs on your own machine, will always, always, always, always be far, far, far, far faster than Cloudflare unless you never use the same website twice in your internet browsing (highly doubtful, most webpages result in dozens of IP connections to the same domain name in just one page load).
This is without getting into the main offense perpetrated by the Cloudflare hype, which is the idea that they're somehow "more privacy" because they don't evilly record your... commonly used IP addresses? unlike your ISP, which apparently sells those like hotcakes. Unlike Google, because Google is automatically evil even when their privacy policy for their DNS service is honestly not scary at all...
Cloudflare, secure? This is the web service that, *by design*, completely renders SSL pointless for a fairly large chunk of the web, given that their whole schtick is literally "We will MiTM everything you do, but if we prevent other people from MiTMing you then that's totally better, also everything you've been told about us MiTMing your traffic is totally a lie, because we're a big company and you can trust us".
http://cryto.net/~joepie91/blog/2016/07 … a-problem/
Slightly more balanced discussion of their MiTM service, which does ignore the implications of a false sense of security, but I *am* biased... https://www.troyhunt.com/cloudflare-ssl … bsolutism/
("If your choice is between literally nothing, and using Cloudflare, stop scaring people into not at least using Cloudflare.")
This is the company which hates Tor, for frankly derpy reasons. https://blog.torproject.org/trouble-cloudflare Oh, but they love security, so surely this is all a lie. Or maybe Tor is the lie!
I'd argue on that merit alone, "literally nothing" is better than Cloudflare, at least for users. It's also more honest, since users know that the service cannot be trusted with data rather than being fooled by Cloudflare into thinking they *can* trust it with their data. Because now users have no way to *enlighten themselves* and seek protection on their own end.
Oh, but you say at least they protect you from everyone other than themselves? Think again... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloudbleed Like heartbleed except instead of critical infrastructure software used by much of the world, it's a glorified CDN (used by far too *much* of the world for what it actually does) that is vulnerable... not that people should be using an inaccurately-marketed CDN for this sort of content, which just goes to show the whole flaw in the basic premise of Cloudflare.
...
Anyone who mentions the word "cloudflare" immediately gets on my "SNR levels just got really low" list. In lots of ways it can be argued to be one of the worst things that ever happened to the modern internet. I'm unsure how their reputation gets to be completely opposite their fairly obvious uselessness. Everything they do can be accomplished in much more transparent *and* secure ways for very little effort.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqnvrjgyEMc

Steef435 · 2018-05-06 19:14:20

Eschwartz wrote:

Steef435 wrote:
If I read it correctly, 1.1.1.1 does support DNS over HTTPS though, which if I understand correctly does prevent ISPs from reading DNS requests and answers (apart from the requests to fetch the necessary IPs and certificates to set up the HTTPS request). Google and Mozilla apparently have experimental implementations already (Chromium with their own nameserver, Firefox with Cloudflare's).
You then use their internet routing to retrieve the content...
Also DNS over HTTPS isn't about privacy, since any attacker does not care if they cannot read your DNS requests, since they can read the IP address in your packets *after* the IP address.
They do care about manipulating the DNS requests, which DNS over HTTPS protects against because it's encrypted. But then again, DNSSEC does the same thing.
DNS over HTTPS is apparently "faster", but that may just be because ISPs are slow and would continue to be slow even if they offered the sacred grail of DNS over HTTPS.

Whoops, hadn't thought of that. In the age of AWS and other shared hosting services (and Cloudflare), it still does make it hard to get the destination in many cases, but in case of a standalone server on a dedicated IP it doesn't help indeed.. Thanks!

EDIT: Apparently the domain name is leaked in plain text during HTTPS requests in those cases as well due to SNI. Guess I shouldn't talk about stuff I don't know enough about..

Last edited by Steef435 (2018-05-06 19:21:35)

ugjka · 2018-05-06 19:33:19

I find Firefox faster than Chrome but that could probably because I have a slow cpu

Arch Linux

#1 2018-05-05 12:24:22

trick to make firefox faster than chromium [SOLVED]

#2 2018-05-05 13:03:49

Re: trick to make firefox faster than chromium [SOLVED]

#3 2018-05-05 13:56:29

Re: trick to make firefox faster than chromium [SOLVED]

#4 2018-05-05 14:33:23

Re: trick to make firefox faster than chromium [SOLVED]

#5 2018-05-05 15:22:43

Re: trick to make firefox faster than chromium [SOLVED]

#6 2018-05-05 15:34:02

Re: trick to make firefox faster than chromium [SOLVED]

#7 2018-05-05 20:56:18

Re: trick to make firefox faster than chromium [SOLVED]

#8 2018-05-06 06:19:47

Re: trick to make firefox faster than chromium [SOLVED]

#9 2018-05-06 12:09:21

Re: trick to make firefox faster than chromium [SOLVED]

#10 2018-05-06 12:40:25

Re: trick to make firefox faster than chromium [SOLVED]

#11 2018-05-06 14:11:16

Re: trick to make firefox faster than chromium [SOLVED]

#12 2018-05-06 14:20:11

Re: trick to make firefox faster than chromium [SOLVED]

#13 2018-05-06 18:58:59

Re: trick to make firefox faster than chromium [SOLVED]

#14 2018-05-06 19:14:20

Re: trick to make firefox faster than chromium [SOLVED]

#15 2018-05-06 19:33:19

Re: trick to make firefox faster than chromium [SOLVED]

Board footer