> a website allowlist Ridiculous. It's even called whitelist in the code snippet.
Really? This is the hill you're going to die on?
It must be very important to them. I wonder if they knew that before they said it in public?
How the most popular Chrome extensions affect browser performance
21–30 of 136 posts
Re: How the most popular Chrome extensions affect browser performance
#22Re: How the most popular Chrome extensions affect browser performance
#23I've seen ublock causing CPU to be pegged at 100% making various js heavy applications completely unusable. https://github.com/uBlock-LLC/uBlock/issues/1829
uBlock-LLC is not ublock origin.
Re: How the most popular Chrome extensions affect browser performance
#24Most ad blockers work by blocking certain network requests that are initiated by the page. DDG Privacy Essentials reduces the number of network requests by 95% and the download weight by 80%. DuckDuckGo Privacy Essentials reduces the CPU time of the article page from 31s to just 1.6s. All other tested extensions also bring CPU time down to at most 10s. It seems the single most important thing regarding Real Word Perf…
Re: How the most popular Chrome extensions affect browser performance
#25Most ad blockers work by blocking certain network requests that are initiated by the page. DDG Privacy Essentials reduces the number of network requests by 95% and the download weight by 80%. DuckDuckGo Privacy Essentials reduces the CPU time of the article page from 31s to just 1.6s. All other tested extensions also bring CPU time down to at most 10s. It seems the single most important thing regarding Real Word Perf…
[deleted]
Re: How the most popular Chrome extensions affect browser performance
#26Great research! I'm a user of evernote web clipper and seeing that they're adding 3mb to every page that I'm using is extremely discouraging. My browse to clip ratio is around 1000:1 and I'm probably removing the extension after this.
Just wondering, can browser extensions codesplit their bundles? If it's possible, then it is really disappointing to see these large companies loading huge bundles on initial load.
Re: How the most popular Chrome extensions affect browser performance
#27> a website allowlist Ridiculous. It's even called whitelist in the code snippet.
Why do you want to fight over a word if you're able to understand everything and good people are trying to reduce bias in human life?
Every word that is commonly or uncommonly used has a physiological impact on perception that is not directly measurable and causes biases. In this case, whitelist = white = allow = positive. Blacklist = black = block = negative. Do you want peoples brain to subconsciously associate words like that?
Instead if we use words like 'allowlist' and 'blocklist', it reduces the association with people's skin color/ethnicity and hence the hidden biases that we do not know are present. This stuff takes generations to fix.
Re: How the most popular Chrome extensions affect browser performance
#28It's entertaining that there is yet another area where "running large numbers of regular expressions, known in advance and not changing all that often" over lots of input is performance critical.
This was a key driver behind writing Hyperscan (https://github.com/intel/hyperscan) which I used to work on when it was primarily used for network security (thousands or tens of thousands of regular expression rules for firewalls), but doing this for ad blocking seems pretty sensible too.
Re: How the most popular Chrome extensions affect browser performance
#29> "DDG Privacy Essentials does a simple object property lookup based on the request domain, an operation that is practically instantaneous"
This sounds interesting. A bit of searching is not providing much enlightenment - anyone care to explain in a bit more detail?
Also, if it is so fast, why aren't all the filter add-ons doing it?
Re: How the most popular Chrome extensions affect browser performance
#30This is a worthy research topic. On mobile, with slower networks and much worse CPUs, uBlock often completely changes the experience. (thanks Mozilla!) I would note though that only example.com was examined (and apple.com in one test). I also did not see information if tests were repeated, as no variance/stddev is given. I'd expect it to be pretty high.
I ran the tests 7 times and then took the median. I'll look into quantifying variance more, but for now here's a boxplot for total on-page CPU time. https://gist.github.com/mattzeunert/de3c8aedd2936a34eeb88b62... I ran tests on example.com, apple.com, and a WCPO news article (for the ad blocker tests). The biggest performance issue is that extensions just dump large scripts into pages indiscriminately. Most of the ti…
Thanks for the info (and the research in general).
The boxplot looks encouraging (as in, the variance doesn't seem too relevant for drawing conclusions)
I hope to use this as another source whenever marketing wants to add yet another tracker.