Author Topic: Why is my computer hiccuping every few seconds? (Read 45727 times)

40hz · « **Reply #25 on:** February 09, 2011, 11:09 AM »

Ramdisk?

1. It's what you say to a balky computer. Usually prefixed by "I'm gonna" and followed by "up your {select orifice}!!!!"

2. Digital scribble pad for an Ovis aries.

3. That which makes a ram a ram.

------

On a more serious note (Thank you Wikipedia!)

A RAM disk or RAM drive is a block of RAM (primary storage or volatile memory) that a computer's software is treating as if the memory were a disk drive (secondary storage). It is sometimes referred to as a "virtual RAM drive" or "software RAM drive" to distinguish it from a "hardware RAM drive" that uses separate hardware containing RAM, which is a type of solid-state drive.

FWIW, they don't get used that much any more. Advances in storage technology removed much of the need to employ something that's a hack at best. About the only time you'll find somebody using one is if they're a real techno wizard type that got annoyed with some dumbass app and decided to kludge around it for performance reasons. (see: f0dder

)

---

Edit: Looks like 4wd got it in ahead of me. And with a link too, the Wanker!

f0dder · « **Reply #26 on:** February 09, 2011, 11:11 AM »

A ramdisk is a logical disk existing in your ram, meaning it's UBERFAST compared to a disk drive.

Very good for stuff like %TEMP%, even if there's a few retardo applications that try to store huge amounts of data in %TEMP%, meaning a 512meg ramdrive can be too little every now and then.

It'd be pretty sweet to move to 12 gigs of system memory and set aside 4-5 gigs for a ramdisk - in my 8gig system, I have a 512meg one.

superboyac · « **Reply #27 on:** February 09, 2011, 11:15 AM »

ok 40, good post, you deserve a:

40 said balky...remember perfect strangers? balky was a riot. what an odd character idea. Love it!

4wd · « **Reply #28 on:** February 09, 2011, 11:17 AM »

Edit: Looks like 4wd got it in ahead of me. And with a link too, the Wanker!
-40hz (February 09, 2011, 11:09 AM)

That's Mr. Wanker! to you!

40hz · « **Reply #29 on:** February 09, 2011, 11:21 AM »

@f0dder - Would be sweet indeed, except I'd say 12Gb of RAM and a UPS.

Actually, I shouldn't be so flip about RAMdisks. They do have their uses We set them up on most servers we do for exactly that reason - to handle scratchpad files, non-critical logs, and temporary file caches.

Makes a big difference on a heavily loaded application server

40hz · « **Reply #30 on:** February 09, 2011, 11:30 AM »

Edit: Looks like 4wd got it in ahead of me. And with a link too, the Wanker!
-40hz (February 09, 2011, 11:09 AM)

That's Mr. Wanker! to you!
-4wd (February 09, 2011, 11:17 AM)

Apologies, High Chancellor.

timns · « **Reply #31 on:** February 09, 2011, 11:39 AM »

Anyone have any experience with this thing:

http://www.superspee.../desktop/ramdisk.php

I like some of its features, such as being able to use >4gb memory area under Windows 32 OSes.

superboyac · « **Reply #32 on:** February 09, 2011, 11:52 AM »

Is the firefox memory issue something that mouser's Process Tamer can improve somehow?

f0dder · « **Reply #33 on:** February 09, 2011, 11:55 AM »

Well, ramdisks aren't just for somewhat shoddily programmed applications (like FireFox), they're also great when you do I/O intensive stuff - like unpacking a huge source code archive, building ISO images, et cetera. And it's nice for %TEMP%.

Windows has FILE_FLAG_TEMPORARY, and linux does special handling of /tmp/, but they aren't guarantees that you won't hit disk - and even if the file data never hits the disk, I think the filesystem metadata might be updated.

Is the firefox memory issue something that mouser's Process Tamer can improve somehow?
-superboyac (February 09, 2011, 11:52 AM)

Nope, it handle CPU-based stuff, yours is an I/O issue.

Btw, is it only FireFox that hiccups, or your entire system? The saving of FF's session state shouldn't be affecting the entire system, but it will freeze the entire FireFox process.

superboyac · « **Reply #34 on:** February 09, 2011, 12:00 PM »

Btw, is it only FireFox that hiccups, or your entire system? The saving of FF's session state shouldn't be affecting the entire system, but it will freeze the entire FireFox process.
-f0dder (February 09, 2011, 11:55 AM)

My hiccup issue is 100% resolved. It was firefox's session restore feature. Once I disabled that, everything was perfect.

Bamse · « **Reply #35 on:** February 09, 2011, 12:37 PM »

How did you disable that session restore? Unless you did it through about:config and settings in "Completely disabling session store" section at http://kb.mozillazin....org/Session_Restore it is still alive.

If you have 50 tabs open and they have been running for a while then may be you will notice small pauses but you should not. Does it happen with just 1 tab open? Anything special with that Firefox? Try a new profile or Session Manager https://addons.mozil...don/session-manager/ Tab Mix Plus also has its own Session Manager. Toolbars/Plugins like AVGs can do something like this but Firefox itself should not - even with long list of potential Firefox problems in mind.

Pauses, hiccups, freezes - yes, yes but not with a std. build in feature used by millions and I think rarely complained about. We will see, I vote solved for now

Tweaks, working or not, are very popular with Firefox but when did you last see interval ms mentioned? That is because no one ever notice session manager causing problems so I am skeptical. New computer, new 7, what must be close to default Firefox should not get anyone to start up Process Explorer. Avast exclude sessionrestore file per default to avoid problems but is exclusive to Avast I would think. Don't know about MSE.

Much better, and more!, I/O is one of the greatest new features of version 4 but old one should not be that bad.

f0dder · « **Reply #36 on:** February 09, 2011, 01:28 PM »

Bamse: even with a modest amount of tabs open, you can experience stuttering if the database file is fragmented enough

Bamse · « **Reply #37 on:** February 09, 2011, 01:48 PM »

But vacuum'ing is build in since 3.5 and should not really be relevant on a fresh install - or even old since it just runs automatically. 10 secs bumps does fit default saving interval of 10000ms but what if sqlite file is corrupted?, what happens then is probably not optimal for fast computing. Why Avast exclude it I think. Sensitive crap on old Firefox. Sqlite Manager https://addons.mozil...ddon/sqlite-manager/ is an add on that can check for "integrity". Not sure but think 4 also has build in check for this, about time since many have had these problems. Typically cookies.sqlite (experienced when sites do not work properly!) Delete them or make new profile is only solution. Always works.

I can't imagine Firefox without session manager + text area cache so it is hard to swallow that turning it all off is a solution to anything

3.5? or was it 3.6 - pretty sure there is some sort of vacuum magic build in. Mozillas interval for doing this is probably once a month or something.

f0dder · « **Reply #38 on:** February 09, 2011, 02:51 PM »

3.5? or was it 3.6 - pretty sure there is some sort of vacuum magic build in. Mozillas interval for doing this is probably once a month or something.
-Bamse (February 09, 2011, 01:48 PM)

Are you sure about this? Doesn't seem to be enabled by default from upgraded installs, at least - my FF3.6 .sqlite files seem to just grow and grow and fragment if I don't manually vacuum.

Bamse · « **Reply #39 on:** February 09, 2011, 03:09 PM »

No I am not. But from 3.6 I am confident that places.sqlite is vacuumed https://bugzilla.moz...ow_bug.cgi?id=512854 Session restore use other files or so I guess, not sure it was relevant to bring up. Programs like CCleaner vacuums all sqlite files in profile.

I have sometimes noticed a somewhat faster awesomebar after vacumming but there is a long way to starting up Process Explorer to investigate. I don't think session restore cry for being vacuumed can cause such problems. Corruption probably can.

Sqlite stuff used on 4 must be the same as on 3.6 right? Just a type of library? Then it is difficult to understand 4 feels so much faster and more responsive when it also does much more. Endless history based on automated detection for one. Like now there are no limits at all. Disk cache also 250mb. I think truth is 3.x sucks with this but just have never seen anyone complaining about session restore being such a pain when it does what it is supposed to do. Must be very weak computer then - most never notice, a non issue but when sqlite files are involved much can happen.

"Our cache code is ancient and sucks. " from a Mozilla developer last summer

Not like they don't know though he mostly talk of file fragmentation. http://blog.mozilla..../file-fragmentation/ see under Preliminary Conclusions. More from their wiki https://wiki.mozilla...acuum#Vacuum_on_idle no date but I guess early 2009. Things move slowly with Mozilla, they talk and wiki away before they implement.

23.09.09 was birth of mini vacuum, see item 17 http://forums.mozill...415&hilit=vacuum

superboyac · « **Reply #40 on:** February 09, 2011, 04:57 PM »

"Our cache code is ancient and sucks. " from a Mozilla developer last summer
-Bamse (February 09, 2011, 03:09 PM)

i love that!

Bamse · « **Reply #41 on:** February 09, 2011, 05:05 PM »

Our cache code is ancient and sucks. The cache files get fragmented immediately and severely. They are accessed in insane patterns and they get laid out insanely on disk. There are some efforts to improve the code, but I suspect that’s equivalent to putting lipstick on a pig.

Looks even better. Opensource = open mouthed

4wd · « **Reply #42 on:** February 09, 2011, 06:12 PM »

Open up about:config and use a vacuum filter, (make sure it's HEPA^w rated - wouldn't want any nasty bugs getting into Firefox):

To convert from RBN¹ to normal time, go here:

That's the last time the database was vacuumed.

This is valid for Firefox 4 but may also be valid for 3.6.

¹ Really Big Number

f0dder · « **Reply #43 on:** February 10, 2011, 01:41 AM »

4wd: there's no storage.vacuum settings in my 3.6.

4wd · « **Reply #44 on:** February 10, 2011, 03:04 AM »

4wd: there's no storage.vacuum settings in my 3.6.
-f0dder (February 10, 2011, 01:41 AM)

Then you need a bigger closet.

It kind of invalidates Bamse' claim that they incorporated it in 3.5/3.6 - not that I set out to do that, just it seemed an easy way of checking whether it was enabled or not.

EDIT: I think my spell checker must be borked, it's letting some simple things through. $:-\$

Bamse · « **Reply #45 on:** February 10, 2011, 03:21 AM »

Look for places.last_vacuum

f0dder · « **Reply #46 on:** February 10, 2011, 03:25 AM »

Look for places.last_vacuum
-Bamse (February 10, 2011, 03:21 AM)

That is present - but is it related to the session state?

Bamse · « **Reply #47 on:** February 10, 2011, 03:33 AM »

If Session thingy work on places.sqlite it could be or why not. Places is the big one but there are other files. None should be corrupted for smooth operations. If not then may be session saving gets screwed up. New profile, new test - same or better? I don't think Mozilla know how it works internally so trial and error is the way to go

I have tried increasing session saving interval but could never tell any difference.

4wd · « **Reply #48 on:** February 10, 2011, 04:30 AM »

Look for places.last_vacuum
-Bamse (February 10, 2011, 03:21 AM)
That is present - but is it related to the session state?
-f0dder (February 10, 2011, 03:25 AM)

Now see, that's what happens when you don't follow instructions:

Open up about:config and use a vacuum filter, (make sure it's HEPA^w rated - wouldn't want any nasty bugs getting into Firefox):
-4wd (February 09, 2011, 06:12 PM)

40hz · « **Reply #49 on:** February 10, 2011, 09:15 AM »

On a related note, could somebody please explain to me what Mozilla was trying to accomplish with Firefox that they needed to drag SQLite into their equation? I don't see anything in a browser's function that necessitates incorporating a whole database engine. Especially an SQL/relational data engine.

And if they really did need a lightweight database, there are far better choices out there than SQLite - and better data models than a relational one.

So what were they trying to do/prove/sell that they took this direction? Because most of their published "reasons" amount to little more than an assertion it was "necessary "coupled with some farfetched scenarios to "prove" it was a smart decision.

I'm more than a little familiar with databases and their underlying technologies. I was heavily involved in database design and programming at one point in my career. But even so, the direction Firefox took still doesn't make much sense to me.

What am I missing here?