1. You are viewing our forum as a guest. For full access please Register. WindowsBBS.com is completely free, paid for by advertisers and donations.

Optimizing Windows 10 with running FF cache in RAM

Discussion in 'Windows 10' started by psaulm119, 2016/03/11.

  1. 2016/03/11
    psaulm119 Lifetime Subscription

    psaulm119 Geek Member Thread Starter

    Joined:
    2003/12/07
    Messages:
    1,424
    Likes Received:
    21
    I was reading Arie's article linked to in a sticky here: http://www.helpwithwindows.com/Windows8/Windows-8-on-Solid-State-Drive.html

    On the third page, it says to run Firefox cache in RAM. Is this recommended for the purposes of speed, or just to save space on the SSD? I do have an SSD (512 gigs, and 8 gigs RAM). I would do this if it would make FF faster, but at the moment I have no need to preserve space on my C partition. It is around 240 gigs and not nearly used up.
     
  2. 2016/03/11
    psaulm119 Lifetime Subscription

    psaulm119 Geek Member Thread Starter

    Joined:
    2003/12/07
    Messages:
    1,424
    Likes Received:
    21
    I've read that because the browser cache would then be in RAM and not in the hard disk, you would be clearing teh cache every time you shut down teh computer---but until that point, it would be faster.

    Is this correct?
     

  3. to hide this advert.

  4. 2016/03/12
    PeteC

    PeteC SuperGeek Staff

    Joined:
    2002/05/10
    Messages:
    28,896
    Likes Received:
    389
    See the second post here for the downsides.
     
    psaulm119 likes this.
  5. 2016/03/12
    psaulm119 Lifetime Subscription

    psaulm119 Geek Member Thread Starter

    Joined:
    2003/12/07
    Messages:
    1,424
    Likes Received:
    21
    Interesting link, Pete. Here is the content from post 2:


    The main bad things are:

    1) This will slow down some plug-ins (Adober reader, for certain)
    which rely on being able to get to the data as a file; if we can't
    store it on disk in our cache, we'll have to stream it to a temp
    file instead.
    2) The size of the memory cache is capped at a much lower number than
    the size of the disk cache; it's a lot easier to fill it up and
    start evicting things.
    3) The disk cache, unlike the memory cache, persists across restarts.
    This means that you trade off slower startup (due to none of your
    restored tabs being in cache) and slower initial visits to all
    sites for slightly faster repeat visits to sites, as long as you
    didn't visit too much stuff in between.
    4) We have ongoing work for Fx4 to make use of the memory cache as
    well as the disc cache for the same content (right now we use one
    or the other but not both for any given resource). Once we do
    that, you'll get all the benefits of this "tweak" without the
    drawbacks... and using the tweak at that point will be a strict
    loss.

    I'm not sure if 2) is valid. If I set the RAM cache to 2 gigs, how could that be less than the 350 megs that FF cache defaults to?

    4) is interesting. I'll poke around and see if I can find out if that has already taken place.
     
  6. 2016/03/12
    Bill

    Bill SuperGeek WindowsBBS Team Member

    Joined:
    2002/01/11
    Messages:
    3,371
    Likes Received:
    412
    If it ain't broke, don't dink with it!

    Windows, especially Windows 10 knows how to use SSDs just fine.

    And Mozilla knows how to set the defaults to optimize Firefox just fine too.

    Unless you truly are a computer scientist with advanced knowledge of the Windows 10 operating system as well as the FF browser, do not assume you can tweak them to make them perform better.
     
    Bill,
    #5

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.