לאתר זה תהיה פונקציונליות מוגבלת בזמן שאנו מתחזקים אותו לשיפור החוויה שלך. אם מאמר מסויים לא פותר את הבעיה שלך וברצונך לשאול שאלה, קהילת התמיכה שלנו מחכה לעזור לך ב־Twitter תחת ‎@FirefoxSupport וב־Reddit תחת ‎/r/firefox.

Avatar for Username

חיפוש בתמיכה

יש להימנע מהונאות תמיכה. לעולם לא נבקש ממך להתקשר או לשלוח הודעת טקסט למספר טלפון או לשתף מידע אישי. נא לדווח על כל פעילות חשודה באמצעות באפשרות ״דיווח על שימוש לרעה״.

מידע נוסף

אשכול זה הועבר לארכיון. נא לשאול שאלה חדשה אם יש לך צורך בעזרה.

FF gets really really slow when there are a lot inline images on a webpage

  • 2 תגובות
  • 4 have this problem
  • 6 views
  • תגובה אחרונה מאת v2lek

v2lek
v2lek
more options

If webpage contains over 100 images as links that are inline:

for example: 

<a href='IMG_1.jpg' rel="lightbox[galerii]" ><img src='.thumb_IMG_1.jpg'></a>
<a href='IMG_2.jpg' rel="lightbox[galerii]" ><img src='.thumb_IMG_2.jpg'></a>
...
<a href='IMG_n.jpg' rel="lightbox[galerii]" ><img src='.thumb_IMG_n.jpg'></a>

Then page loading takes unreasonably long time. Like 30-60 second or more. And thumbnails are really smaal, about 4k each - so theres not really much data or network traffic.

With 50 pics all is fine (loading time around a second); 90 pics also (loading time about a second); after 100 or so pictures on page you can see how FF struggles, first it displays some 20 images, then it 'thinks' then few more images, then it 'thinks' then few more images.. and so on.

Processor does not seem to get much load at that time.

When reloading the page with cached images, FF renders quickly - when forcing a shift reload, then it struggles again.

This is not a server problem as when tried with different browsers the problem does not occur on first page load or forced reload without cache. Only with FF this happens.

Also, when thumbnails are replaced with just text about image name as links the rendering is instant.

Tried safe mode with no addons - problem still accurs.

System has Phenom II X6 1055T processor with 8gigs of ram. FF cache has been placed on ramdrive for speed.

If webpage contains over 100 images as links that are inline: for example: <pre><nowiki><a href='IMG_1.jpg' rel="lightbox[galerii]" ><img src='.thumb_IMG_1.jpg'></a> <a href='IMG_2.jpg' rel="lightbox[galerii]" ><img src='.thumb_IMG_2.jpg'></a> ... <a href='IMG_n.jpg' rel="lightbox[galerii]" ><img src='.thumb_IMG_n.jpg'></a></nowiki></pre> Then page loading takes unreasonably long time. Like 30-60 second or more. And thumbnails are really smaal, about 4k each - so theres not really much data or network traffic. With 50 pics all is fine (loading time around a second); 90 pics also (loading time about a second); after 100 or so pictures on page you can see how FF struggles, first it displays some 20 images, then it 'thinks' then few more images, then it 'thinks' then few more images.. and so on. Processor does not seem to get much load at that time. When reloading the page with cached images, FF renders quickly - when forcing a shift reload, then it struggles again. This is not a server problem as when tried with different browsers the problem does not occur on first page load or forced reload without cache. Only with FF this happens. Also, when thumbnails are replaced with just text about image name as links the rendering is instant. Tried safe mode with no addons - problem still accurs. System has Phenom II X6 1055T processor with 8gigs of ram. FF cache has been placed on ramdrive for speed.

השתנתה ב־ על־ידי cor-el

כל התגובות (2)

user66338
user66338
more options

Hey,

can you please create a minimized test case or give me a URL of a testcase and then create a bug report or let me do that?

--Tobbi

v2lek
v2lek Question owner
more options

Thanx for your reply,

You can see the behaviour here: [http://grimsun.eu/gal/sdir.php] -- did not have time to make minimized example right now, so heres 'full' example.

Try it with different browsers, difference is immence.

By the way, test with FF under linux @ work showed a little better results but still not very good.

If you think or confirm that this is indeed problem with FF then it would be nice of you to raise a bugreport, yes.

Have a nice day :)