From 97630324d52adef7ab67da81d37d6b1aa31fd4b0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: neonItem <67307199+androidkotlindev@users.noreply.github.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2022 19:01:21 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] uBlock to uBlock Origin (and to uBO)
---
uBlock-vs.-ABP:-efficiency-compared.md | 52 +++++++++++++-------------
1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
diff --git a/uBlock-vs.-ABP:-efficiency-compared.md b/uBlock-vs.-ABP:-efficiency-compared.md
index c9704fd..404c8cd 100644
--- a/uBlock-vs.-ABP:-efficiency-compared.md
+++ b/uBlock-vs.-ABP:-efficiency-compared.md
@@ -7,21 +7,21 @@ Here is a quick illustrated comparison of efficiency using various angles. Each
### Own memory footprint
-These screenshots show the memory footprint of ABP and uBlock _after_ they have gone through this rather [demanding benchmark](./Reference-benchmark). Once the benchmark was completed, I forced the browser to garbage collect the memory in each extension by clicking the trash icon (in dev console) a couple of times -- this is an _important step_, or else the shown memory footprint is not too reliable.
+These screenshots show the memory footprint of ABP and uBO _after_ they have gone through this rather [demanding benchmark](./Reference-benchmark). Once the benchmark was completed, I forced the browser to garbage collect the memory in each extension by clicking the trash icon (in dev console) a couple of times -- this is an _important step_, or else the shown memory footprint is not too reliable.
##### Adblock Plus
-##### uBlock
-
+##### uBlock Origin
+
-Both extensions had _EasyList_, _EasyPrivacy_, _Peter Lowe's Ad Server_ list, and malware protection (there are more filters in µBlock for this last one).
+Both extensions had _EasyList_, _EasyPrivacy_, _Peter Lowe's Ad Server_ list, and malware protection (there are more filters in uBlock Origin for this last one).
### Added CPU overhead to each net request
Last updated on: 30 January 2015.
-ABP and uBlock need to evaluate the URL of each net request against their dictionary of filters, and eventually tell the waiting browser whether the request should be cancelled or not. Since the browser is waiting for an answer, this is a time critical part and determining whether the request should be allowed or not must be done as fast as possible.
+ABP and uBO need to evaluate the URL of each net request against their dictionary of filters, and eventually tell the waiting browser whether the request should be cancelled or not. Since the browser is waiting for an answer, this is a time critical part and determining whether the request should be allowed or not must be done as fast as possible.
Below are the average time it takes for each extension to handle a net request in their respective `chrome.webRequest.onBeforeRequest` handler, using the same [benchmark](./Reference-benchmark).
@@ -38,22 +38,22 @@ Below are the average time it takes for each extension to handle a net request i
ABP> onBeforeRequest: 0.421 ms (9704 samples)
ABP> onBeforeRequest: 0.421 ms (9861 samples)
-##### uBlock 0.8.7.0
+##### uBlock Origin 0.8.7.0
- uBlock> onBeforeRequest: 0.131 ms (8664 samples)
- uBlock> onBeforeRequest: 0.131 ms (8763 samples)
- uBlock> onBeforeRequest: 0.131 ms (8839 samples)
- uBlock> onBeforeRequest: 0.130 ms (8914 samples)
- uBlock> onBeforeRequest: 0.131 ms (8988 samples)
- uBlock> onBeforeRequest: 0.131 ms (9033 samples)
- uBlock> onBeforeRequest: 0.130 ms (9192 samples)
- uBlock> onBeforeRequest: 0.130 ms (9206 samples)
- uBlock> onBeforeRequest: 0.129 ms (9324 samples)
- uBlock> onBeforeRequest: 0.129 ms (9329 samples)
+ uBO> onBeforeRequest: 0.131 ms (8664 samples)
+ uBO> onBeforeRequest: 0.131 ms (8763 samples)
+ uBO> onBeforeRequest: 0.131 ms (8839 samples)
+ uBO> onBeforeRequest: 0.130 ms (8914 samples)
+ uBO> onBeforeRequest: 0.131 ms (8988 samples)
+ uBO> onBeforeRequest: 0.131 ms (9033 samples)
+ uBO> onBeforeRequest: 0.130 ms (9192 samples)
+ uBO> onBeforeRequest: 0.130 ms (9206 samples)
+ uBO> onBeforeRequest: 0.129 ms (9324 samples)
+ uBO> onBeforeRequest: 0.129 ms (9329 samples)
##### Methodology
-Note that the results above are the tail end of running the [reference benchmark](./Reference-benchmark), except `wait` set to 15, and `repeat` set to 1. Both ABP and uBlock set to use _EasyList_, _EasyPrivacy_, _"Peter Lowe’s Ad server list"_, _"Malware domains"_. ABP-specific: _"Acceptable ads"_ disabled. µBlock-specific: default settings.
+Note that the results above are the tail end of running the [reference benchmark](./Reference-benchmark), except `wait` set to 15, and `repeat` set to 1. Both ABP and uBO set to use _EasyList_, _EasyPrivacy_, _"Peter Lowe’s Ad server list"_, _"Malware domains"_. ABP-specific: _"Acceptable ads"_ disabled. µBlock-specific: default settings.
The results depend heavily on the processor: I benchmarked on an i5-3xxxK CPU @ 3.4 GHz x 4.
@@ -67,21 +67,21 @@ Extensions have their own memory footprint, but they also cause increased memory
**Adblock Plus:**
-**uBlock:**
-
+**uBlock Origin:**
+
Now keep in mind this is the added footprint for a very simple web page which has no embedded frames. You can multiply the added footprint on the main page by the number of frames embedded on a page, so page with frames can end up consuming a _lot_ more memory than they would have otherwise. For instance, a very simple web page with a couple of `iframe` in it, [The Acid3 Test](http://acid3.acidtests.org/):
-
+
Added memory footprint: Left = no extension. Middle = Adblock Plus. Right = µBlock.
A good stress test which further demonstrate this is the [infamous vim test](https://github.com/gorhill/httpswitchboard/wiki/Adblock-Plus-memory-consumption).
-##### uBlock vs. Adblock: memory usage differential during reference benchmark
+##### uBlock Origin vs. Adblock: memory usage differential during reference benchmark
-
+
-Above picture gives an overview of how much more memory Adblock Plus consumes over uBlock. It represents the **extra memory** ABP consumes relative to µBlock -- so essentially uBlock is the horizontal axis. If memory consumption of ABP and uBlock were exactly the same, there would be no graph. The [reference benchmark](/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Reference-benchmark) was used, which consists of visiting 60 front pages of high traffic web sites.
+Above picture gives an overview of how much more memory Adblock Plus consumes over uBlock Origin. It represents the **extra memory** ABP consumes relative to uBO -- so essentially uBO is the horizontal axis. If memory consumption of ABP and uBO were exactly the same, there would be no graph. The [reference benchmark](/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Reference-benchmark) was used, which consists of visiting 60 front pages of high traffic web sites.
The vertical axis represents MB. The horizontal axis is time in seconds, and the data was tediously extracted from [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKM78oV_ftg) (consider the video to be the raw data -- [here is the spreadsheet](https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/blob/master/doc/benchmarks/ublock-vs-abp-timeline.ods) so people can double check in doubt).
@@ -91,13 +91,13 @@ The blue area represents how much more ABP itself consumes more memory than µBl
This is the benchmarks comparing CPU usage in the background page when loading [si.com](http://www.si.com) ten times (so you can shift one decimal to the left for per page figures). Each page load was triggered after the previous page load completed.
-**Top:** Adblock Plus 1.8.3. **Bottom:** uBlock 0.5.1.0.
+**Top:** Adblock Plus 1.8.3. **Bottom:** uBlock Origin 0.5.1.0.
-I did measure CPU usage for content scripts (above benchmarks are for background pages), but given the web page used for the benchmark is quite a bloated one, the useful figures were drowned in a sea of noise. But the fact that ABP inserts 14,000+ CSS rules caused the CPU to used be much more than uBlock (2-3 to 1 ratio) when comparing content script CPU usage (again, above is background page CPU usage).
+I did measure CPU usage for content scripts (above benchmarks are for background pages), but given the web page used for the benchmark is quite a bloated one, the useful figures were drowned in a sea of noise. But the fact that ABP inserts 14,000+ CSS rules caused the CPU to used be much more than uBO (2-3 to 1 ratio) when comparing content script CPU usage (again, above is background page CPU usage).
-Also, the amount of work µBlock does in its content scripts is proportional to the complexity of a web page. So given uBlock did much better CPU-wise than ABP in its content script for such a bloated web site means it was a worst-case scenario for µBlock, and yet it did its job of hiding elements between 2 and 3 times faster.
+Also, the amount of work uBlock Origin does in its content scripts is proportional to the complexity of a web page. So given uBO did much better CPU-wise than ABP in its content script for such a bloated web site means it was a worst-case scenario for uBO, and yet it did its job of hiding elements between 2 and 3 times faster.
### Related wiki pages