ABP systematically causes web pages to consume more memory, and often quite a lot, north of 100 MB for some sites. The orange area depicts how much more ABP causes the web pages to consume more memory. The blue area represents how much more memory ABP consumes than uBO. Here is the spreadsheet so people in doubt can double-check). Data extraction occurred from this video. The reference benchmark, consisting of visiting 60 front pages of high-traffic websites, was used. If memory consumption of ABP and uBO were the same, there would be no graph. It represents the extra memory ABP consumes relative to uBO, so, essentially, uBO is the horizontal axis. The above picture shows how much more memory ABP consumes over uBO. Adblock: memory usage differential during reference benchmark Right = uBO.Ī good stress test that demonstrates this is the infamous vim test. For instance, a simple web page with a couple of iframe in it, The Acid3 Test:Īdded memory footprint: Left = no extension. You can multiply the added footprint on the main page by the number of frames embedded, so pages with frames can consume a lot more memory than they would have otherwise. Now keep in mind this is the added footprint for a simple web page that has no embedded frames. The browser was idle after loading the page to allow the garbage collector to kick in.
Other screenshots show the increased memory footprint caused by each one. Therefore, consider it as the reference memory footprint for this web page. The first screenshot is when there is no extension used. Below you can see the added memory footprint in a simple web page like Hacker News. Added memory footprint to web pagesĮxtensions have their memory footprint, but they also cause an increased memory footprint in web pages. The results depend heavily on the processor: I benchmarked on an i5-3xxxK CPU 3.4 GHz x 4. ABP and uBO both use EasyList, EasyPrivacy, "Peter Lowe’s Ad server list" and "Malware domains". Note that the results above are the tail end of running the reference benchmark, except wait set to 15 and repeat set to 1. UBO> onBeforeRequest: 0.129 ms (9329 samples) UBO> onBeforeRequest: 0.129 ms (9324 samples) UBO> onBeforeRequest: 0.130 ms (9206 samples) UBO> onBeforeRequest: 0.130 ms (9192 samples) UBO> onBeforeRequest: 0.131 ms (9033 samples) UBO> onBeforeRequest: 0.131 ms (8988 samples) UBO> onBeforeRequest: 0.130 ms (8914 samples) UBO> onBeforeRequest: 0.131 ms (8839 samples) UBO> onBeforeRequest: 0.131 ms (8763 samples) UBO> onBeforeRequest: 0.131 ms (8664 samples) Since the browser is waiting for an answer, this is a time-critical part, and determining whether to allow the request must be done immediately.īelow is the average time for each extension to handle a net request in their respective handler, using the same benchmark. Added CPU overhead to each net requestĪBP and uBO need to evaluate the URL of each net request against their dictionary of filters and tell the waiting browser to cancel it or not. (This is an important step, or else the shown memory footprint is not too reliable.) ABPīoth extensions had EasyList, EasyPrivacy, Peter Lowe's Ad Server list, and malware protection (there are more filters in uBO for this last one). Once benchmarking was complete, I forced the browser to garbage collect the memory in each extension by clicking the trash icon (in the dev console) a couple of times.
#Adguard adblock plus plus#
These screenshots show the memory footprint of Adblock Plus (ABP) and uBlock Origin (uBO) after they have gone through this demanding benchmark. Benchmarks were performed on Linux Mint 64-bit using Chromium. Each extension was tested alone, with no other extensions enabled. Here is a quick illustrated comparison of efficiency using various angles.
#Adguard adblock plus software#
Software known to have uninstalled uBlock Origin.Doesn't uBlock Origin add overhead to page load?.
Does uBlock Origin block ads or just hide them?.Overview of uBlock's network filtering engine: details.Overview of uBlock's network filtering engine.Medium mode (optimal for advanced users).
0 kommentar(er)
