this post was submitted on 11 Jan 2025
15 points (100.0% liked)

Firefox

4276 readers
28 users here now

A community for discussion about Mozilla Firefox.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
lightbeam24@lemmy.world
15
how to monitor extension resource usage? (lemmy.sdf.org)
submitted 4 days ago by whatwasthat@lemmy.sdf.org to c/firefox@lemmy.world
5 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

When you have the choice of multiple addons/extensions that can perform a certain task, is there a way to monitor their system resource use? To select the one which is the leanest.

I am sometimes using firefox on low-end devices. I feel that certain extensions are using more/less resources. But what's the truth?

In linux system/task monitors, you can see processes "WebExtensions" running beneath firefox. Is this reporting extensions as name suggests? If so, is there a way to correlate them to specific add-ons?

Would also like to be able to know about what extensions are doing "in the background" vs when you are actively using them.

This is about desktop versions of firefox, not mobile.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] whatwasthat@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

hmmm... about:memory might have the info but I have no idea how to interpret it.

Adding the !g gives a google results page with 1 relevant result which suggests it might just be an open question. (Thread is from March 2024.)

I have been using ddg for years and never bothered with bangs. They've changed something in the past months/year or so. I think the engine tries to guess too much what you mean. Obviously, there exists many webpages with my search query exactly as I wrote it. But even the google search is mostly finding results "about performance" like the screencap of the ddg is guessing.

[โ€“] gazby@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 days ago

I didn't pay enough attention, and boy you aren't kidding, and the verbatim filter doesn't even help, JFC. Please accept an apology for my snark, this is just sad ๐Ÿ˜ญ

Anyway, adding "firefox" to the query helps a lot (wow Google, where did you find all those verbatim instances of this search term?!), enough to find the bug report of it being removed.

Sorry to be of additional no-help mate ๐Ÿ˜ž