From 93af1d1605ac4e0cbdf0ffe1cffc0be77b142c34 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: q1800 <95879668+q1800@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2022 18:11:07 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] Update URL, ABP naming convention, grammar/rewording fixes --- Own-memory-usage:-benchmarks-over-time.md | 22 +++++++++++----------- 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) diff --git a/Own-memory-usage:-benchmarks-over-time.md b/Own-memory-usage:-benchmarks-over-time.md index ed381d3..0af9873 100644 --- a/Own-memory-usage:-benchmarks-over-time.md +++ b/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:
@@ -15,26 +15,26 @@ After benchmark completed:
![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:
![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_.