Vivaldi noticeably sluggish since upgrading to 3.0
-
I updated from 2.6 to 3.0 today and straight away noticed a slowdown in Vivaldi's operation. Not necessarily page loading, but the UI itself. It feels like the CPU's been swapped for a slower one. Several times I've pressed F8 and quickly started typing but the UI hasn't kept up and didn't overwrite the existing URL. Never happened before. If I do it slowly it works as normal. It feels sluggish in several other areas as well. Just wanted to ask if this is a known thing, before I take time to disable extensions, clear cache, etc. (and are they likely to help anyway?).
-
@rf10 said in Vivaldi noticeably sluggish since upgrading to 3.0:
Just wanted to ask if this is a known thing, before I take time to disable extensions, clear cache, etc. (and are they likely to help anyway?).
No such known issue internally. You may proceed with trying to find the source of the problem. Does it happen with a clean profile as well?
-
@mtaki14 I didn't know what a clean profile entailed so looked it up and haven't got the time right now or the risk appetite to do that. That was from a 2016 thread however, so it's possible there's a quick and safe way of doing it with new versions.
-
@rf10 Testing with a Ctrl-Shift-N window is a good first step.
-
I sent this in to the bug forum, but I noticed upon checking Task Manager numerous instances of running processes even whenn only one or two tabs is open. I hope this has been resolved but wondering if anyone else has noticed this?
-
@dxace1 said in Vivaldi noticeably sluggish since upgrading to 3.0:
numerous instances of running processes even whenn only one or two tabs is open.
Yes, you will always see a number of processes, if you use the Vivaldi task manager (Shift+ESC) you will see what these are. Browser, GPU, Network, Audio, App, and one for each extension and each panel you've opened in this session. This is normal.
-
@rseiler Great, thanks - everything works perfectly in a new window, a huge difference. Maybe it's the number of tabs I've got open or cache or something so I'll sort it out. Glad to see it's not Vivaldi's fault.
-
@rf10 I'm having the identical issues... Ever since I upgraded to 3.0 et al. (I tried 3.0.1874.33 just out today which updated from one of the first V 3.0 cuts a few days ago.) This report is spotty at best, so I expect if it continues, I will report better details later.
WHILE I was editing this just now before, JUST before I posted this, I did notice that CPU for the whole V stack jumped to ~25% and stayed there for 10-20 seconds (as per graphs). (25% on this PC = 2 of 8 logical and 1 of 4 physical cores at 100%.)-> PC = Alienware MR-17 -- 16 GB ram -- SSD - 2k-x4k 17" NVidia 980 - Windows 10
-> ANY V 3.0 version -- MANY windows and tabs (but IDENTICAL number, or less than when running V 2.xI've tried :
- Opening a new tab on every open page, then hibernating all other tabs. So now I have NO windows with open tabs... But, just trying to open another tab, or a bookmark now takes 30 seconds.
- Using "ITM" (Internal Task Manager for Viv) to ID any offending plugins, CPU / GPU.
- Closed and reopened V numerous times --- Generally NOW, each time I reopen Viv, it takes almost 5 minutes to open all the windows and tabs.
- Process Manager (SysInternals) shows
- -- NOW, AT IDLE - 11 GB out of 16 GB Physical in use. CPU = 20-30% with Viv = 2-4% -- ITM - Internal Task Manager -- BROWSER = 20-40 -- GPU = 3-20
- -- When SLOW?? I see tasks that seem simple, like opening a new tab, or switching to an existing tab, going to certain websites. Then, it SEEMS to be slower, and I see that when it becomes slow, it goes to, and STAYS at 25% CPU for the WHOLE branch -- seems like 5-35 seconds.
I realize I have very little specific information on when it is running slow, HOW slow?, and what parts are specifically slow?
I will try to report more when I have better details. For the MOMENT at least, I seem to have acceptable performance. (SEE NOTE in the first PARAG here, for more recent update). -
@rf10 The notable difference with a private window in the area of performance is that it runs without extensions, unless you've configured a given extension to explicitly work with private windows, which you probably haven't. So I'd start thinking about one of those not liking 3.0.
-
@rseiler Interesting. A new private window runs fast, and a new non-private window runs noticeably slower. I'd never given thought to that before, thanks for bringing it up. (Mostly for my own reference) I'm using these extensions - will try disabling each one.
uBlock Origin
uBlock Origin Extra
uBO-Scope
Privacy Badger
I Don't Care About Cookies
HTTPS Everywhere
Stylus -
@rf10 I disabled all extensions and no noticeable difference. Opening a new tab (which here opens a tiny local HTML file) is essentially instant in a private window and takes about 0.7 seconds in a normal ones. Is there any other reason apart from extensions why there would be a difference?
-
@rf10 Interesting. Anyone have some thoughts on how that could be?
I know private windows don't store searches, cookies, etc., but it's very unlikely any of that would have a bearing.
-
@rseiler said in Vivaldi noticeably sluggish since upgrading to 3.0:
Anyone have some thoughts on how that could be?
Could be a massive history backlog. Some users have reported slowness when saving history for ever. It would explain why private windows are fast, as they hold no history. Maybe a huge cookie jar would do it too, or a very large downloads list.
-
@Pathduck It could be tabs - I didn't realise I had over 800 open, although only a handful are active. History, downloads and cookies are all minimal. It'll take a long time to process them but I'll post back when it's done.
-
@rf10 First, how do you not realize such a thing visually? Also the startup time and the memory taken (lazy loading can only do so much).
And it's not as if they're all closed just because you open a private window, but somehow a private window wasn't influenced by them anyway. Maybe it's more the number of tabs per window than overall resources consumed by the browser.
But a more basic point: did you not have 800 right before you upgraded to 3.0? Why weren't they a problem then?
-
@rseiler I use the Window panel as my tab bar, and so when more than around 40 are open the only visual indicator is the length of the panel scrollbar. After 100-200, which can happen very quickly, it stops being a useful indicator.
It's due to poor workflow and discipline. I have time to look individual things up but not to process them properly (read the page, make notes, take action, close the tab) and so they accumulate. It's caused problems in the past but after starting afresh I fell back into the pattern and don't know how to break it. Psychology .
I'd guess something in 3.0 changed in a way that unintentionally lowers the threshold for when tab numbers start being a problem.
-
@rf10 OK, thanks for the further info.
In the interest of trying to nail down what might not just be an isolated problem: I've been seeing something possibly identical as of 3.0, though it doesn't happen often (most sites tend not to trigger the problem). You didn't really say how often this happened to you overall with 3.0. Maybe not often? Or was it basically all the time?
I don't know if you can still reproduce the problem, but did you happen to look at Task Manager when it was occurring? Was Vivaldi's CPU use spiking at those times? That is certainly the case here when it happens, and the internal task manager (Shift-ESC) goes to 100 for "Browser" (though note that the internal task manager will be frozen for a time when the problem is happening).
And when the problem was happening, did you see a title bar appear at the top of Vivaldi (unusual in itself, since Vivaldi doesn't normally have one) saying "Not Responding"?
I'm curious now if you still see the problem with fewer tabs. Way fewer. I have a crazy theory based on what you've said and what I've experienced: I don't think you need to be anywhere close to 800 tabs to see the issue. I can get it with around 10, though that's a very loose number.
But here's the key: it doesn't happen in a new window, even if the other window has >10 tabs open (heck, you found this with 800, so this won't be surprising). But I don't mean a private window: just a new window (Ctrl+N) will be fine, which takes extensions out of the equation for good since they're still active with Ctrl+N.
I really do think something is going on here, and your 800 might have been a red herring masking the real problem. Like you, I never experienced this before 3.0 short of hitting the rare bad site.
Win10 (Insider), 16GB
-
@neonturbo
Hi, the problem is it is not for every user only for a few.
I use Vivaldi mainly on Linux but cross check those reports on Windows 10 Pro on different systems, i5 3570K for example.
Vivaldi is absolute snappy, no lags.
My old GTX 760 does not support all video codecs, VC9 is rendered on CPU, but my CPU never goes about 10 - 15 %.
There can be many reasons why Vivaldi slows down but not Vivaldi.
One user report he use 20000 bookmarks, it slows down Vivaldi to turtle.
Some AV software blocks Vivaldi to crawl, and so forth.
Updates increase Chromium version sometimes break Vivaldi on some systems.
Check Vivaldi with a Guest Profile or private window to sort out extensions, for example.Cheers, mib
-
@neonturbo
I have not such a performant system like yours, i5 3570K 16GB, and there is no difference performance wise between Vivaldi, Opera and Chrome on it.
May we can find out why, I love such problems but hate them at the same time.With AV software I meant anti virus software, some user report problems with Vivaldi (even Defender).
My last idea for now, disable it for a test.Cheers, mib
Short test on my old Linux laptop: https://youtu.be/9q6uPYtpJsw
The screen cast need a lot of power, it is much faster without. -
In an attempt to figure out why my seldom-used Vivaldi Dev install doesn't have the issue (as far as I've seen in testing), I took a look at the largest files in the profile of my main install (which are all much larger than their equivalents in my Dev install) on the theory that 3.0 has developed a sensitivity to profile files of a certain size (this wouldn't be a new phenomenon):
77MB: History
17MB: Bookmarks
8MB: Cookies
3MB: Web Data
2MB: Visited LinksAnd this one, which after further reading around here, I found was a basically useless file:
15MB: Top Sites
So, I deleted it and have been re-testing without it (well, with its <1MB replacement). So far so good, but it's too soon to know for sure, and I rarely guess right on the first attempt.