Firefox Tweak Guide

skoal · 2005-01-31 03:49:05

I ran across this article the other day, and it really seems to speed things up for my browser. I have a high speed connection with 792 MB, and pages really seem to "snap" now.

There are some performance tweaks in there for "dialup" users, but for me, I added the following to my "user.js" file.

user_pref("browser.cache.memory.capacity", 65536);
user_pref("content.interrupt.parsing", true);
user_pref("content.max.tokenizing.time", 2250000);
user_pref("content.notify.interval", 750000);
user_pref("content.notify.ontimer", true);
user_pref("content.switch.threshold", 750000);
user_pref("network.http.max-connections", 48);
user_pref("network.http.max-connections-per-server", 16);
user_pref("network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-proxy", 16);
user_pref("network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-server", 8);
user_pref("nglayout.initialpaint.delay", 0);

I haven't added the "pipelining" settings yet, but will test them out later.

Spider.007 · 2005-01-31 12:00:12

skoal wrote:

user_pref("network.http.max-connections", 48);
user_pref("network.http.max-connections-per-server", 16);
user_pref("network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-proxy", 16);
user_pref("network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-server", 8);

You do know you are DOS'ing every webserver now? 16 connections per server is not a good thing; and will only make webmasters limit this number serverside.

skoal · 2005-01-31 13:55:55

Spider.007 wrote:

You do know you are DOS'ing every webserver now? 16 connections per server is not a good thing; and will only make webmasters limit this number serverside.

Nah. You're sorely mistaken. If I wanted to DOS someone, they would know it. Please be careful how you throw that word around. The total number of connections to internet servers has long since been on the rise, for a long time. More advanced web servers have long since made this possible. I don't know who or what server you are referring to exactly. Http 1.0 and 1.1 specifications are just that, specifications. And, like you say, at worst case those few servers will just limit that serverside, so why not take advantage of those allowing more? If you think it's such an issue, take that up with the developers of Mozilla. Window/IE users have long since made similar tweaks to their registry. Why not enjoy the same? We are running Linux afterall.

The bottom line is, play with the settings. Having more persistent connections doesn't necessarily increase performance. Pipelining has a better effect with fewer connections. I haven't tried pipelining out, but will try different settings and see.

phrakture · 2005-01-31 16:05:43

In addition, *most* webservers have a setting that allows X incoming connections - basically it says "hmmm another connection from 1.2.3.4? Well, that IP already has 6 connections, nope... denied!"
So even if you say "Firefox give me 30000000 connections to a single server" the server can still deny them and give you 2.

Spider.007 · 2005-01-31 16:55:39

skoal wrote:

Spider.007 wrote:
You do know you are DOS'ing every webserver now? 16 connections per server is not a good thing; and will only make webmasters limit this number serverside.
Nah. You're sorely mistaken. If I wanted to DOS someone, they would know it. Please be careful how you throw that word around.

It would be much better to use pipelining to increase performance; it will not deny service to other users

The total number of connections to internet servers has long since been on the rise, for a long time. More advanced web servers have long since made this possible. I don't know who or what server you are referring to exactly. Http 1.0 and 1.1 specifications are just that, specifications.

They aren't just specifications. Most webservers will be configured to allow a maximum of connections; not a number of connections / IP. Therefore most servers will deny requests to other users because you are opening 16 connections at the same time

And, like you say, at worst case those few servers will just limit that serverside, so why not take advantage of those allowing more?

I find it more plausible that Mozilla Firefox will get a bad name with server admins because of these 'tweaks'

If you think it's such an issue, take that up with the developers of Mozilla.

You prefer not to have the power; above being able not to (mis)use it?

Window/IE users have long since made similar tweaks to their registry. Why not enjoy the same? We are running Linux afterall.
The bottom line is, play with the settings.

But don't misuse the powers you have been given

skoal · 2005-02-02 05:54:10

Spider, I can appreciate some of your concerns, but quite frankly, I think some of it is greatly misplaced. You seem to be worried about chewing up extra CPU cycles on some guy's webserver running out of the basement of his house. For the rest of us, who visit all the major websites on a daily basis, the server farms and racks which take up hundreds of square feet would find your concern...well...much like Bill Gates' accountant rounding off to the penny.

The only suggestion I would make is that if someone shares similiar "concerns" such as yourself, you can always play with these settings and remove them later if you want.

cactus · 2005-02-02 08:05:55

indeed. I found best performance using bits and peices of what was listed in the article.
Thanks for the great link skoal.
8)

Arch Linux

#1 2005-01-31 03:49:05

Firefox Tweak Guide

#2 2005-01-31 12:00:12

Re: Firefox Tweak Guide

#3 2005-01-31 13:55:55

Re: Firefox Tweak Guide

#4 2005-01-31 16:05:43

Re: Firefox Tweak Guide

#5 2005-01-31 16:55:39

Re: Firefox Tweak Guide

#6 2005-02-02 05:54:10

Re: Firefox Tweak Guide

#7 2005-02-02 08:05:55

Re: Firefox Tweak Guide

Board footer