<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Shawn Wilsher &#187; Firefox</title>
	<atom:link href="http://shawnwilsher.com/archives/tag/firefox/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://shawnwilsher.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2010 17:36:19 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Perilous Performance Proportions</title>
		<link>http://shawnwilsher.com/archives/410</link>
		<comments>http://shawnwilsher.com/archives/410#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Jul 2010 21:09:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Shawn Wilsher</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Mozilla]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Firefox]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[session restore]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[startup]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://shawnwilsher.com/?p=410</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Recently, I started working on one of our Q3 goals to reduce &#8220;dirty&#8221; profile startup time to be only 20% of normal startup time. It is a pretty big and scary problem, and is probably the hardest problem I have ever worked on for the Mozilla project (I have had some doozies in the past [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Recently, I started working on one of our Q3 goals <a href="https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox/Projects/2010Q3_Dirty_Startup_Reduction">to reduce &#8220;dirty&#8221; profile startup time to be only 20% of normal startup time</a>.  It is a pretty big and scary problem, and is probably the hardest problem I have ever worked on for the Mozilla project (I have had some doozies in the past too&#8230;).  So far I have only spent time trying to get consistent results of startup time with a dirty profile (of the Firefox kind) so I can then compare profiles (of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profiling_%28computer_programming%29">program profile</a> kind) to a clean profile (of the Firefox kind).  For now, I am just using a copy of my own profile to get some data (no, you cannot have a copy of it).</p>
<p>Unfortunately, I immediately hit a bit of a speed bump.  I think a picture best explains this:</p>
<div align="center"><a href="http://shawnwilsher.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/startup.png"><img src="http://shawnwilsher.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/startup-300x218.png" alt="chart of dirty startup" title="Dirty Startup Chart" width="300" height="218" class="size-medium wp-image-412" /></a></div>
<p>This is a chart of the 20 runs talos does when measuring startup time.  As you can see, the dirty profile kept on increasing each and every run.  After about a day of investigating this, the cause is finally known: tabs.  Turns out, talos tries to quit the browser before calling <code>window.close()</code>, which results in the tabs not closing.  As a result, at the end of the 20 cycles, we were loading 19 more tabs than the first cycle.  I <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=581711" title="goQuitApplication called before window.close()">filed a bug about this behavior against talos</a>.  It does not matter now, but if we ever decide to change the default preference in Firefox to load your windows and tabs from last time this will come back to bite us.</p>
<p>I did learn something useful out of all of this though: startup time scales linearly with the number of tabs session restore has to restore.  I confirmed this by running talos with 200 cycles instead of the normal 20, and it was clearly a linear increase.  We should probably figure out a way to mitigate that, but I have not filed a bug on it (yet!).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://shawnwilsher.com/archives/410/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bluetooth Tethering with the N900 and T-Mobile</title>
		<link>http://shawnwilsher.com/archives/380</link>
		<comments>http://shawnwilsher.com/archives/380#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Mar 2010 04:36:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Shawn Wilsher</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Mozilla]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bluetooth]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dial-Up Networking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Firefox]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[JoikuSpot]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N900]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://shawnwilsher.com/?p=380</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#8217;ve been spending the last few train rides to and from work every day trying to figure out how to tether my N900 to my laptop. While Firefox Mobile is nice, there are some things my desktop does better. I first tried using the PC Suite from Nokia, but that wasn&#8217;t successful (it apparently doesn&#8217;t [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve been spending the last few train rides to and from work every day trying to figure out how to tether my N900 to my laptop.  While <a href="http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/mobile/">Firefox Mobile</a> is nice, there are some things my desktop does better.  I first tried using the <a href="http://www.nokiausa.com/get-support-and-software/software/nokia-suites-for-your-pc">PC Suite from Nokia</a>, but that wasn&#8217;t successful (it apparently doesn&#8217;t support the N900).  I then tried <a href="http://www.joiku.com/index.php?action=products&#038;mode=productDetails&#038;product_id=605">JoikuSpot</a>, which is in beta.  Sadly, I encountered the &#8220;phone reboots when clients connect&#8221; bug.  However, if they fix that, that piece of software looks very promising.  I finally went down the road to Bluetooth Networking.</p>
<p>In order to pull this off, you&#8217;ll need to get a handy little application from the Application Manager.  Under the Network section, look for &#8220;Bluetooth Dial-Up Networking&#8221; in the Extras repository.  After you install that, you will want to restart your device.  Next, pair your N900 with you laptop (this varies per operating system.  I used Windows 7 and these instructions will assume that).  After pairing the device, add a new Dial-Up connection on that modem.  The phone number will be <code>*99#</code> and you will leave the user name and password blank.  Save the connection, but cancel it when it tries to dial (it will fail anyway).  Now, launch the device manager, and find the Bluetooth modem that should have been installed when you paired the N900 to your computer.  Open its properties, and go to the Advanced tab and set the Extra initialization commands to <code>at+cgdcont=1,"IP","epc.tmobile.com"</code>.  After this, you should be able to connect to the Internet though your phone.</p>
<p>To prove that it works, I wrote this on the train, and I&#8217;m posting while still on the train. :P</p>
<p><small>I found <a href="http://wiki.howardforums.com/index.php/Tether_with_Windows_XP">this particular wiki page</a> to very useful in setting this up, but I found translating the instructions to Windows 7 to be a bit difficult at times.</small></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://shawnwilsher.com/archives/380/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Swing and a Miss</title>
		<link>http://shawnwilsher.com/archives/305</link>
		<comments>http://shawnwilsher.com/archives/305#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Sep 2009 21:48:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Shawn Wilsher</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Mozilla]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AutoComplete]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Firefox]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[location bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[performance]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://shawnwilsher.com/?p=305</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[When we landed the asynchronous location bar, some people started to see substantially slower results. This was alarming since it was supposed to end up speeding or staying the same for everyone. After some investigation, we realized that the AutoComplete code was doing something very dumb with asynchronous searches. The problem was that the code [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When we landed the <a href="http://shawnwilsher.com/archives/279">asynchronous location bar</a>, some people started to see substantially slower results.  This was alarming since it was supposed to end up speeding or staying the same for everyone.  After some investigation, <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=509048">we realized that the AutoComplete code was doing something very dumb</a> with asynchronous searches.  The problem was that the code would not actually handle the user pressing the enter key until the next set of results came in.  Not only did this result in slower processing of the user&#8217;s selection, it also meant that weird race conditions would come up such as up opening a new tab, pasting a url in, press enter, and then switch tabs resulting in the reloading of the page that was just switched to.  In other words, epic fail all around.</p>
<p>Luckily, the fix was trivial.  Now we handle the enter keypress immediately when the user hits it, and not later.  Problem solved :)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://shawnwilsher.com/archives/305/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Session Restore Now Writes to Disk Off of the Main Thread</title>
		<link>http://shawnwilsher.com/archives/294</link>
		<comments>http://shawnwilsher.com/archives/294#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2009 19:47:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Shawn Wilsher</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Mozilla]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[asynchronous]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Firefox]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fsync]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[performance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[session restore]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[write]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://shawnwilsher.com/?p=294</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Last week I landed bug 485976 which moves the writing and subsequent fsync (or flush on windows) call to a background thread. This should benefit all of our users, especially those with slower hard drives. Paul O&#8217;Shannessey has filed another bug that will reduce the amount of disk activity substantially more that will benefit our [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Last week I landed <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=485976" title="Move writing sessionstore.js off the main thread">bug 485976</a> which moves the writing and subsequent fsync (or flush on windows) call to a background thread.  This should benefit all of our users, especially those with slower hard drives.  <a href="http://zpao.com/">Paul O&#8217;Shannessey</a> has <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=508740" title="Use mozStorage for SessionStore">filed another bug</a> that will reduce the amount of disk activity substantially more that will benefit our users even more.</p>
<h3>Background</h3>
<p>Session restore writes out to disk very frequently &#8211; every ten seconds, in fact.  This behavior is controllable by the preference <a href="http://kb.mozillazine.org/Browser.sessionstore.interval"><code>browser.sessionstore.interval</code></a> for those who want to reduce that, but then you run the risk of not having all your data saved if you crash.  We really don&#8217;t want to reduce that time for our users.</p>
<p>The amount of data that is written out to disk by session restore scales linearly with the number of tabs and windows you have open.  The more you have, the more data has to be written out to disk, and the longer it is going to take.</p>
<p>As <a href="http://shawnwilsher.com/archives/168">we learned in the past with Places</a>, writing to disk and calling fsync can be painfully slow.  In session restore code, we are doing this very often <em>and</em> on the main thread.  Clearly, this is a bad thing.</p>
<h3>Process and Solution</h3>
<p>This section is a bit technical, so feel free to skip it. The short answer is “do not block the main thread while writing and flushing data to the hard drive.”</p>
<p>We wanted to address this problem as much as we could for Firefox 3.6.  In order to actually reduce the number of writes and fsync calls, we would have to heavily modify how session restore manages and writes its data.  That is a big change that we were not comfortable doing this late in the 3.6 cycle.  On top of that, we do not really have the manpower to do that change since the people who know that code well are working on other performance improvements for this release.  The simple solution for now then is to move our write and fsync calls off of the main thread.</p>
<p>Luckily, <a href="http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/bz/">Boris Zbarsky</a> had recently <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=482310" title=" Add an API to asynchronously copy data to an output stream">written a new API for JS consumers</a> to asynchronously copy an input stream to an output stream.  This API would work great for session restore!  We had to <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=508605" title="NetUtil.asyncCopy does not handle nsISafeOutputStreams correctly">fix one minor issue with the underlying code</a> not properly handling nsISafeOutputStreams (which make sure we fsync properly), but once that was done, <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=393074&#038;action=diff">the fix</a> was incredibly simple.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://shawnwilsher.com/archives/294/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Asynchronous Location Bar has Landed</title>
		<link>http://shawnwilsher.com/archives/279</link>
		<comments>http://shawnwilsher.com/archives/279#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Aug 2009 20:33:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Shawn Wilsher</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Mozilla]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[asynchronous]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Firefox]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[location bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mozStorage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[performance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[places]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SQLite]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://shawnwilsher.com/?p=279</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[About two weeks ago the asynchronous location bar work landed in mozilla-central without much issue. It&#8217;s also in the Firefox 3.6 alpha we just recently released. This has the potential to impact all of our users, but those on slower hard drives will notice this the most. Your location bar searches may not complete any [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>About two weeks ago the asynchronous location bar work <a href="http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/pushloghtml?changeset=8cff4bd2121a">landed in mozilla-central</a> without much issue.  It&#8217;s also in the <a href="https://developer.mozilla.org/devnews/index.php/2009/08/07/firefox-3-6-alpha-1-now-available-for-download/">Firefox 3.6 alpha</a> we just recently released.  This has the potential to impact all of our users, but those on slower hard drives will notice this the most.  Your location bar searches may not complete any faster than before, but they certainly won&#8217;t be hanging your browser and locking up the UI.</p>
<h3>Background</h3>
<p>We&#8217;ve been getting reports for some time about the location bar hanging the application for some users when they are typing in it.  This wasn&#8217;t a problem that was reproducible on every machine, and even on machines that saw it, it wasn&#8217;t always 100% reproducible.  Clearly, this behavior is not desirable, so we set out to fix it.</p>
<p>I had a theory to the cause almost a year ago and <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=455555">filed a bug</a> that I was hoping we could work on and fix for Firefox 3.5.  We knew that reading data off a disk can be slow (and certainly would complete in a non-deterministic amount of time).  Since SQLite uses blocking read calls (no more code can execute until the data is read from disk), this could certainly be the cause of the slowdown our users were seeing.  Some simple profiling showed that this was largely the cause of the hanging.  Work began on the project, but it was clear that enough issues were cropping up that we were not going to be able to safely take this change for Firefox 3.5, and resources were diverted elsewhere.</p>
<h3>Process and Solution</h3>
<p>This section is a bit technical, so feel free to skip it.  The short answer is &#8220;do not block the main thread while reading from the hard drive.&#8221;</p>
<p>In order to not block the main thread while reading from disk we either need to make SQLite use non-blocking read system calls, or call into SQLite off of the main thread.  Changing the SQLite code isn&#8217;t something we want to do, so that solution was out of the question.  Luckily, we had solved a similar problem with writes and fsyncs earlier in the Firefox 3.5 development with the <a href="http://shawnwilsher.com/archives/162">asynchronous Storage API</a>.</p>
<p>The first implementation that we tried essentially did the same thing that the old code did.  We would execute a query, but this time asynchronously, and then process the results and see if they match.  There were two issues with this approach, however.  The first issue was that we were filtering every history and bookmark entry on the main thread for a given search.  That could be a lot of work we end up doing, and with the additional overhead of moving data across threads, the common case would see no win.  The second issue was that once we selected a result in the location bar, and a search was not yet complete, there would be a hang as the main thread processed a bunch of events that Storage had posted to it containing results.</p>
<p>At this point, we realized we needed to do the filtering on a thread other than the main thread.  After some thought, we was figured that the easiest way to do that would be to use a SQL function that we define in the WHERE clause of our autocomplete queries.  This way, all the filtering is done on a background thread, and the code that runs on the main thread only deals with results we will actually use.  This solution exposed some things in the Storage backend like lock contention and a few other subtle issues, but nothing major came up.</p>
<p>For more details on how the location bar search results are generated, see <a href="http://stackoverflow.com/questions/540725/how-does-firefoxs-awesome-bar-match-strings/1208458#1208458">my explanation here</a>.</p>
<p>If you weren&#8217;t having a problem before, chances are you won&#8217;t notice any difference at all.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://shawnwilsher.com/archives/279/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Test Build: Asynchronous Location Bar (Take &gt;2)</title>
		<link>http://shawnwilsher.com/archives/270</link>
		<comments>http://shawnwilsher.com/archives/270#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Jul 2009 22:32:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Shawn Wilsher</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Mozilla]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Firefox]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[location bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[performance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[places]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://shawnwilsher.com/?p=270</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I have another test build for folks to try out. This fixes a possible error condition that could happen in certain circumstances. This build has two known issues: There is a lot of flickering when new results show up. This is being tracked in bug 393902. Your computer will hang for a period of time [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have another test build for folks to try out.  This fixes a possible error condition that could happen in <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=455555#c104">certain circumstances</a>.  This build has two known issues:</p>
<ol>
<li>There is a lot of flickering when new results show up.  This is being tracked in <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=393902">bug 393902</a>.</li>
<li>Your computer will hang for a period of time (it will become responsive again) if you continue to type once no results are found.  This is being tracked in <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=503701">bug 503701</a>.</li>
</ol>
<p>This is built off of a &#8220;stable&#8221; point of mozilla-central, so it&#8217;s like using a 3.6 nightly.  All the normal warnings apply about using it.  I&#8217;m told this greatly increases the speed at which results obtained by many people.  If you experience any issues (other than the two listed here), please let me know!  The <a href="http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/latest-places/">builds can be found here</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://shawnwilsher.com/archives/270/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Asynchronous Location Bar Searches</title>
		<link>http://shawnwilsher.com/archives/255</link>
		<comments>http://shawnwilsher.com/archives/255#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:43:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Shawn Wilsher</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Mozilla]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Firefox]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[leaks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[location bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mozStorage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://shawnwilsher.com/?p=255</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[For those of you using the asynchronous location bar add-on, today&#8217;s nightly of both mozilla-central and mozilla-1.9.1 should show a reduction in memory use. Turns out there was a bit of a leak in mozStorage that would mean you&#8217;d get high memory usage that would never go down. My bad. For those of your programmers [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For those of you using the <a href="http://shawnwilsher.com/archives/239">asynchronous location bar add-on</a>, today&#8217;s nightly of both mozilla-central and mozilla-1.9.1 should show a reduction in memory use.  Turns out there was <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=482614" title=" mozStorageVariant leaks its internal data due to non-virtual destructor">a bit of a leak in mozStorage</a> that would mean you&#8217;d get high memory usage that would never go down.  My bad.</p>
<p>For those of your programmers out there, I have a word of advice.  Always make sure you have a virtual destructor in your base class.  If you don&#8217;t, you could spend days tracking down a leak that doesn&#8217;t seem to make sense.  Of course, this probably would have been spotted earlier if we <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=469523" title="Enable TUnit leak log in tinderbox (log)">reported leaks in xpcshell unit tests</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://shawnwilsher.com/archives/255/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>More fsync and write Reduction</title>
		<link>http://shawnwilsher.com/archives/242</link>
		<comments>http://shawnwilsher.com/archives/242#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2009 23:30:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Shawn Wilsher</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Mozilla]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DTrace]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Firefox]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fsync]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[performance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[places]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[write]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://shawnwilsher.com/?p=242</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As you may or may not be aware, my personal mission as of late is to reduce the number of writes and fsyncs that Firefox makes, and move the ones that we do have to make off of the main thread. The primary target here has been Places, and the work is still continuing. The [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As you may or may not be aware, my personal mission as of late is to reduce the number of writes and fsyncs that Firefox makes, and move the ones that we do have to make off of the main thread.  The primary target here has been Places, and the work is still continuing.</p>
<p>The Firefox team has been focusing on <a href="https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox3.1/Sprints">code sprints</a> to get some small well scoped things done for Firefox 3.1 since we&#8217;ve got a bit more time.  My <a href="https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox3.1/Sprints/Places_Expiration_Performance_Refactoring" title="Places Expiration Performance Refactoring">latest sprint</a> can be found over in <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=480211" title="Stop expiring history on every page visit">bug 480211</a>, where I&#8217;ve removed a write and fsync that we used to do after every page visited.  If we had enough pages in history that were old enough, we would remove them from history.  We now do this off of the main thread, asynchronously at the same time we flush data from our temporary tables to our permanent ones.  The net result is the same number of writes and one less fsync.  Additionally, the write is no longer done on the main thread.</p>
<p>Sadly, I couldn&#8217;t measure any real-world performance gains with my <a href="http://shawnwilsher.com/archives/178">DTrace scripts</a> &#8211; in fact I saw no change during several different runs of Tp3 with various places.sqlite files.  It&#8217;s quite possible I did not have the conditions setup correctly to have pages expiring, and I could have spent a few more hours generating just the right places.sqlite file to demonstrate wins in the real world, but the theory behind the patch is pretty simple.  The gain is pretty obvious.</p>
<p>Just another drop in the bucket of performance wins for Firefox.  Stay tuned, as there is more to come!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://shawnwilsher.com/archives/242/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Test Add-on: Asynchronous Location Bar Searches (Take 3)</title>
		<link>http://shawnwilsher.com/archives/239</link>
		<comments>http://shawnwilsher.com/archives/239#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Feb 2009 04:41:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Shawn Wilsher</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Mozilla]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Firefox]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[location bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[performance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[places]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://shawnwilsher.com/?p=239</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It seems as though the past builds still had issues on Windows. Mook was kind enough to get be a stack of the hang on shutdown folks were seeing, and I&#8217;ve modified the code to avoid making that happen (still not sure why it happened, but I know how it could get there &#8211; bug [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It seems as though the <a href="http://shawnwilsher.com/archives/236">past</a> <a href="http://shawnwilsher.com/archives/230">builds</a> still had issues on Windows.  Mook was kind enough to get be a stack of the hang on shutdown folks were seeing, and I&#8217;ve modified the code to avoid making that happen (still not sure why it happened, but I know how it could get there &#8211; bug is filed).  Without further delay, here&#8217;s an <a href="https://services.forerunnerdesigns.com/extensions/get/async-location-bar-test@forerunnerdesigns.com/0.12/">add-on that you can try out with the latest fixes in</a>!  I&#8217;ve been told on irc that this one works much better on Windows.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://shawnwilsher.com/archives/239/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>11</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Test Build: Asynchronous Location Bar Searches (Take 2)</title>
		<link>http://shawnwilsher.com/archives/236</link>
		<comments>http://shawnwilsher.com/archives/236#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Feb 2009 06:01:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Shawn Wilsher</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Mozilla]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Firefox]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[location bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[performance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[places]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://shawnwilsher.com/?p=236</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It turns out that I neglected to make the all-important packages-static file changes that would actually result in a build that works for most folks in my previous test builds. I thought I had fixed that with the last build, but apparently I never submitted it to the try server (I had the line in [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It turns out that I neglected to make the all-important packages-static file changes that would actually result in a build that works for most folks in my previous test builds.  I thought I had fixed that with <a href="http://shawnwilsher.com/archives/230">the last build</a>, but apparently I never submitted it to the try server (I had the line in my terminal all ready to just press enter though!).</p>
<p>Without further delay, <a href="https://build.mozilla.org/tryserver-builds/2009-02-21_20:53-sdwilsh@shawnwilsher.com-try-1bb16971859/">here is the new test build</a>.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve also made a <a href="https://services.forerunnerdesigns.com/extensions/get/async-location-bar-test@forerunnerdesigns.com/0.11/">handy little add-on</a> that lets you test this out.  I haven&#8217;t tested this add-on extensively, but it should work out OK.  If you think you see a bug, try the test build first before reporting it please.</p>
<p>Still want your feedback on if you think the results are faster, slower, or about the same, so please follow-up!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://shawnwilsher.com/archives/236/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
