On 3/1/19, Dirk Munk <[email protected]> wrote: > Lee wrote: >> On 2/28/19, Dirk Munk <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I've set the following cache parameters with about:config : >>> >>> 1. browser.cache.use_new_backend = 1 (true) >>> This activates a 'new' cache mechanism, that seems to be faster and more >>> stable than the old one. It is unclear why this isn't the default >>> setting. >> It's a programmers' law: There is no fix as permanent as a 'temporary' >> fix: >> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=913806#c8 >> >> The pref that is enabled by default is >> "browser.cache.use_new_backend_temp" >> >> I still have the defaults for >> browser.cache.use_new_backend set to 0 >> browser.cache.use_new_backend_temp set to true >> And all my cache files are under the cache2 dir which agrees with >> https://www.janbambas.cz/mozilla-firefox-new-http-cache-is-live/ > > Did you read this in that article: > > Enabling the new HTTP cache by default is planned for Q4/2013.
That and the date in the bug report - hence the snark about the 'temporary' fix that's still there. > I assume that Firefox is now using the 'new' cache as the only cache > mechanism, so why shouldn't Seamonkey do that as well? What makes you think it isn't? I just tried exiting both SM & FF, deleted all the cache directories except for safebrowsing & started the browsers. I have a cache2 directory for both. I don't get a cache directory created until I put 'about:cache' in the url bar >>> 2. browser.cache.memory.capacity = 4194304 (4 GB) >>> This sets the *maximum* memory capacity of the cache to 4 GB. It does >>> *not* mean that Seamonkey will always use 4 GB of cache memory, it >>> merely means that the cache memory is allowed to grow up to 4 GB *if* >>> Seamonkey needs it. For that to happen there must be many, many tabs >>> open. >> http://kb.mozillazine.org/Browser.cache.memory.capacity > > Did you read the table on that page? > It says that using the -1 setting will give you a memory cache of 32 MB > if your system has 8 GB or more RAM. > The default setting for Seamonkey is 200 MB at the moment, I'm using 4 GB. > That page was written in the dark ages. ^shrug^ maybe so, but I'm not having a problem with seamonkey stalling or maxing out a cpu. The defaults are working fine for me. >> For e-mail and newsgroups (i.e., Thunderbird and SeaMonkey), >> messages for IMAP accounts are cached as well in either disk or memory >> cache, unless synchronized locally already. This reduces the amount of >> network activity to reload previously viewed messages. This preference >> controls the maximum amount of memory to use for caching decoded >> images, messages, and chrome items (application user interface >> elements). >> >> Maybe if you haven't compacted your mail in a while & all the deleted >> msgs are still in the file? Or you're looking at newsgroups with a >> long retention period? Because it seems like the only web pages that >> might need >10 MB of cache are if videos are cached. > > On the one hand it may be interesting to know why Seamonkey is using so > much memory cache. On the other hand, I don't care. I want to use > Seamonkey the way I'm using it. So I make the settings fit for my use. Sounds good to me :) >>> 3. browser.cache.disk.enable = 0 (false) >>> This setting *disables* the disk cache. After I made this setting, >>> Seamonkey became extremely fast compared with an active disk cache. >>> However, keep in mind that you should only use this setting after >>> increasing the memory capacity of the cache. >> I still think it's a bad idea, but I don't have a gigabit speed >> internet link or <10 millisecond response time to the web sites I >> frequent like I recall somebody claiming they had. > > I think I have 300 Mb/sec download at the moment. > >> >> https://lifehacker.com/speed-up-firefox-by-moving-your-cache-to-ram-no-ram-di-5687850 >> Update: One of the folks over at Mozilla laid out a few downsides to >> using this method. It's not a bad idea, per se, but it's good to be >> informed about what this does vs. the default settings (and how future >> plans for Firefox will work with this tweak). >> ---- links to >> https://groups.google.com/forum/?_escaped_fragment_=msg/mozilla.dev.apps.firefox/nqYLKTsOAbs/Fh7XO2PVUn0J >> >> Lee > > Again, that is an article from 2010!! > > But let's see if that article is still useful: > > 1. It will slow down plug-ins like Adobe reader. I don't notice that. > > 2. The size of the memory cache is capped at a much lower number. > Perhaps with a 32 bit browser, but the standard size of the disk cache > is 350 MB, I'm using 4 GB in memory!! > > 3. The disk cache persists across restarts. That is a horrible argument. Not so horrible if you have a metered connection. The only internet connection my brother in law had for a long time was wireless that cost $$$ if he went over his traffic quota. For people like him, a persistent cache helps save money. > If there is anything I hate, then it is taking junk from a previous > session to a new session. When I was still using Windows 98, I often had > the Blue Screen of Death. The stability of the system was greatly > enhanced after I made a registry setting that cleaned the page file > during the shutdown procedure. $WORK kept doing that to my laptop. It was most annoying having to wait 10-20 minutes for the damn thing to shut down. >It's the same thing with Seamonkey. After > Seamonkey crashed, I often deleted the profiles folder in appdata > > local > Mozilla > Seamonkey. It made Seamonkey much more stable, since > this folder also contains the disk cache. Try it again. See what cache directories get re-created. > 4. I see no reason to use a disk cache if you have a proper memory > cache. It's very simple, never do on disk what you can do in memory. Whatever works for you. Regards, Lee _______________________________________________ support-seamonkey mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
