prehistoric-systems/uBlock
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock.git synced 2026-03-11 09:04:36 +00:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Update URL, ABP naming convention, grammar/rewording fixes

q1800 2022-04-09 18:11:07 -05:00
parent 671687ffd4
commit 93af1d1605
1 changed files with 11 additions and 11 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

22
Own-memory-usage:-benchmarks-over-time.md

@ -1,11 +1,11 @@
Just a place for me to keep track of comparative memory usage over time. Screenshot before/after [reference benchmark](./Reference-benchmark). Great care taken to ensure memory was garbage collected before screenshots taken. To force memory garbage collection, browser left on idle for more than 1 minute, then dev console of each extension opened, _Timeline_ tab, then clicked twice on the trash can icon.
Just a place for me to keep track of comparative memory usage over time. Screenshot before/after [reference benchmark](./Reference-benchmark). The memory was garbage collected with great care before taking the screenshots. Forcing memory garbage collection occurred by leaving the browser idle for more than 1 minute, then the dev console of each extension opened, _Timeline_ tab, then clicked twice on the trash can icon.
### 23 December 2014
- Chromium 39.0.2171.65 64-bit (Linux)
- uBlock Origin (uBO) 0.8.2.2
- AdBlock 2.15
- Adblock Plus 1.8.8
- Adblock Plus (ABP) 1.8.8
- Adguard AdBlocker 1.0.3.8
Before benchmark started:<br>
@ -15,26 +15,26 @@ After benchmark completed:<br>
![after](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/gorhill/uBlock/master/doc/benchmarks/mem-usage-20141223-after.png)
Observations during benchmark:
- ABP/AdBlock/Adguard are CPU intensive. Whereas uBO consistently show at most low-single digit CPU usage, other blockers are most often showing double-digit CPU usage, and sometimes in the high double-digit range.
- ABP/AdBlock/Adguard are CPU intensive. uBO consistently shows at most low single-digit CPU usage, other blockers are most often showing double-digit CPU usage, and sometimes in the high double-digit range.
Settings:
- **uBO 0.8.2.2**: _EasyList_, _EasyPrivacy_, _Peter Lowe's_, _Fanboy’s Social Blocking List‎_, all malware lists (3). Launched with a valid selfie (i.e. less memory churning at launch).
- **uBO 0.8.2.2**: _EasyList_, _EasyPrivacy_, _Peter Lowe's_, _Fanboy’s Social Blocking List‎_, all malware lists (3). Launched with a valid selfie. (Less memory churning at launch).
- **AdBlock 2.15**: _AdBlock custom filters_, _EasyList_, _EasyPrivacy_, _Peter Lowe's_, _Fanboy’s Social Blocking List‎_, _Malware protection_.
- **Adblock Plus 1.8.5**: _EasyList_, _EasyPrivacy_, _Peter Lowe's_, _Fanboy’s Social Blocking List‎_, _Malware Domains_. _Acceptable ads_ disabled.
- **ABP 1.8.5**: _EasyList_, _EasyPrivacy_, _Peter Lowe's_, _Fanboy’s Social Blocking List‎_, _Malware Domains_. _Acceptable ads_ disabled.
- **Adguard AdBlocker 1.0.3.8**: _English filters_, _Spyware filter_, _Peter Lowe's_, _Social media filter‎_, _Phishing and malware protection_. _Allow acceptable ads_ disabled.
- Browser's _Click-to-play_ enabled
- Browser's _Block third-party cookies and site data_ checked
Notes:
- Users should mind [privacy issues](http://adguard.com/en/how-malware-blocked.html#extension) raised when enabling AdGuard's _Malware/phishing protection_.
- Users should mind [privacy issues](https://kb.adguard.com/en/general/how-malware-protection-works#extensions) raised when enabling AdGuard's _Malware/phishing protection_.
### 18 September 2014
- Chromium 37.0.2062.94 64-bit (Linux)
- uBO v 0.6.2.1
- AdBlock 2.7.13
- Adblock Plus 1.8.5
- ABP 1.8.5
- Ghostery 5.4.0
- Disconnect 5.18.15
@ -45,15 +45,15 @@ After benchmark completed:<br>
![after](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/gorhill/uBlock/master/doc/benchmarks/mem-usage-20140918-after.png)
Observations during benchmark:
- AdBlock is *very* CPU intensive. Adblock Plus also, although to a lesser degree compared to AdBlock.
- AdBlock is *very* CPU intensive. ABP also, although to a lesser degree compared to AdBlock.
Settings:
- **uBO v 0.6.2.1**: _EasyList_, _EasyPrivacy_, _Peter Lowe's_, _Fanboy’s Social Blocking List‎_, all malware lists (3). Launched with a valid selfie (i.e. less memory churning at launch).
- **uBO v 0.6.2.1**: _EasyList_, _EasyPrivacy_, _Peter Lowe's_, _Fanboy’s Social Blocking List‎_, all malware lists (3). Launched with a valid selfie. (Less memory churning at launch).
- **AdBlock 2.7.13**: _AdBlock custom filters_, _EasyList_, _EasyPrivacy_, _Fanboy’s Social Blocking List‎_, _Malware protection_.
- **Adblock Plus 1.8.5**: _EasyList_, _EasyPrivacy_, _Fanboy’s Social Blocking List‎_, _Malware Domains_. _Acceptable ads_ disabled.
- **ABP 1.8.5**: _EasyList_, _EasyPrivacy_, _Fanboy’s Social Blocking List‎_, _Malware Domains_. _Acceptable ads_ disabled.
- **Ghostery 5.4.0**: _Blocking all trackers_. Ghostrank not selected. _Alert bubble_ disabled.
- **Disconnect 5.18.15**: Default settings.
Notes:
I chose to not benchmark AdGuard, because of the privacy issues when enabling _Malware/phishing protection_.
I chose not to benchmark AdGuard, because of the privacy issues when enabling _Malware/phishing protection_.