Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

Chrome Portable in a RamDisk = decadence?

<< < (3/3)

4wd:
K-Meleon is still around, v75RC02 as of 29/03/2015 - quite a capable browser.

MilesAhead:
K-Meleon is still around, v75RC02 as of 29/03/2015 - quite a capable browser.
-4wd (April 29, 2015, 09:48 PM)
--- End quote ---

I use the Portable as a lightweight browser when I'm doing something else resource intensive.. like MBAM or SAS scans.

f0dder:
I personally can't see much advantage of putting the browser executables on a ramdisk - they're small enough to load fast even on a mechanical HDD, and (for most people's usage patterns) once the browser is loaded, it stays loaded most of the day.

What can make sense is storing the browser cache on a ramdisk (I wouldn't disable it even if I had a 100mbit connection - latency and throughput to a local disk is a lot faster than any network connection) and, even more so, the firefox profile. Firefox does a fair amount of small reads and writes all the time while you're browsing to various SQLite databases (cookies, browsing history, website offline storage, et cetera).

I would recommend SoftPerfect RAM disk - it's fast(*), free, stable and no-nonsense. It supports persisting the contents to disk, and doing so at regular intervals, making it optimal both for %TEMP%(**) and for keeping data around.

(*): yes, there's noticable speed differences between ramdisk products.
(**): some installers expect %TEMP% to be persistant across reboots...

Hopefully applications know enough to check available disk space before trying to park giant temp files, like for m2ts muxing.  :)-MilesAhead (April 29, 2015, 07:05 AM)
--- End quote ---
They generally don't :) - if you want %TEMP% on a ramdisk, you should dedicate a sizable chunk, and be prepared to do one-off reverts especially for installers. 1gig works pretty OK for me, additionally storing firefox profile and WebSiteWatcher bookmarks.

[/quote]
The problem is it handles a huge amount of memory just to display the pages. The engine is inefficient and it leaks like there's no tomorrow. To be fair, it was even worse.-eleman (April 29, 2015, 07:15 AM)
--- End quote ---
"Leaks like no tomorrow" hasn't been true for quite a while, leaks are mostly caused by poorly written addons. The engine isn't inefficient either, but there's tradeoffs... Firefox can get unresponsive if you're trying to load a zillion tabs at once, since it happens in one process, whereas Chrome launches a new process for each tab. So yeah, Chrome is more responsive in that scenario, but also ends up using a heavy chunk of memory.

Anyway, as the working space used by Firefox approaches to 10 figures (in bytes), just occupying that large a space becomes a burden on the CPU. Hence we have the unresponsive Firefox problem.-eleman (April 29, 2015, 07:15 AM)
--- End quote ---
That sentence makes no sense :)

MilesAhead:
One thing is for sure.  MxNitro is not ready for prime time.  On DNS lookup error instead of posting a 404 error it just dies with a fatal error msg.  A bit fragile for my taste.  :)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page