I've got my Firefox to store the cache on my RAM drive. When I shutdown/restart, I have an empty RAM drive again. I keep my %temp% and %tmp% files there too.
Can be a pretty good performance boost to store the cache on a RAM drive (and to have less writes to the SSD of course)
hi but in the article they are talking about recovery.js ,it's inside the profile can't believe that firefox can write in a file like recovery.js 24kb
The file recovery.js grows with each click on a link and each 15 sec. And if you have a lot of tabs opened you can reach 10GB up to 30GB per day. Not only the file "recoverys.js" but cookie-related data "cookies.*" (this file is much bigger) is affected too
hi thanks but is enough set "browser.sessionstore.interval" to 1800000 ? i guess to avoid it , we need to move the entire profile to a ram disk, seeing i don't think i can move the profile on an hard disk thanks
1800000 = 30 min. Whatever you prefer. At least it is not 15 seconds --- You can use a portable edition of Firefox, and install it on your ram disk. Now all firefox-related data is there.
hi but maybe i could disable the feature "restore the previous session" have tried to find how to disable it, but no luck browser.sessionstore.enabled doesn't exist anymore , on the older version you could set to disable
on old versions you could disable it with the setting browser.sessionstore.enable (false) But you can have the same effect with the settings browser.sessionstore.max_tabs_undo / browser.sessionstore.max_windows_undo (both set to 0):
browser.sessionstore.cleanup.forget_closed_after - 15000 browser.sessionstore.interval - 3600000 browser.sessionstore.max_resumed_crashes - 0 browser.sessionstore.max_tabs_undo - 0 browser.sessionstore.max_windows_undo - 0 browser.sessionstore.restore_on_demand - false browser.sessionstore.resume_from_crash - false browser.sessionstore.upgradeBackup.maxUpgradeBackups - 0
pointless - imagine how many write accesses windows itself do - thats much more less than 15 seconds ah mantra its you again spamming around with this myth (mozillazine)
I have tried many things, including the marzametal's parameters but Firefox continue to use the disk relatively often. I exceed 100 MB very quickly; and after, 200MB, etc, etc. Chromium is a bit quieter, no more. I don't want a RAMDisk and on the other hand, if I don't want cache, if I don't want cookies (with some exception), if I don't want 'restore session' etc, I don't see why Firefox continues to write like a psychopath on my expensive NVMe. It starts to bother me. Should I shut its mouth with Pumpernickel? Not a solution. Following the advice from an IT blogger, Korben, I tested Opera developer (portable version). Without having to touch a single parameter, the write on disk is divided maybe by 5. The browser is very pleasant on many points and the few addons I use on FF are available on Opera. so ... Goodbye Firefox and hello Opera.
can you determine which folder is raising (except cache) or frequently used? i do not notice such behavior (on 4 systems) so i consider it not as regular. at least modern ssd are more than capable to survive this hence windows is writing much more data than firefox - and you forgot your other regular used programs - what about those? concerning opera - be carefull what you see - opera is already multithreading and you have to summon ALL child threads. opera here writes between 3kb/s and 100 kb/s (all threads - higher with web page viewing - lower when idle)
Seems like every time you update FF, you need to change this setting. But anyway, I noticed something strange. Every time I visit the enSilo blog, FF keeps producing disk writes (500 to 800KB), even if the site is already loaded. Can you guys perhaps verify this, and is this normal? You can use System Explorer for checking I/O reads and writes. http://blog.ensilo.com/atombombing-a-code-injection-that-bypasses-current-security-solutions http://systemexplorer.net/
I couldn't see anything suspicious. After loading of the website there is barely any change in disk I/O or I/O
Not System Explorer, but Process Hacker. Shouldn't make any difference if is is being monitored with PH or SE.
I'm just trying to make sure there isn't anything wrong with System Explorer. But if you really don't see it, it might be because of my FF version, plus I also run it protected with Sandboxie.
