Firefox Writing 10GB Per Day to SSD

>"Update 1: We are testing other browsers. Currently in the middle of a Chrome Version 52.0.2743.116 m test. We have been able to see a pace of over 24GB/ day of writes on this machine"

You should read what you keep spamming.

>power outage
>lose session
No, thanks.

This 2bh.

>Having power outages
Do you like in HUEHUEland or something?

>chrome writes twice as much and cant be turned off
Sauce?

It says so in OP's article

The Chrome writing more data thing has to be garbage. Chrome doesnt cache webpages locally, it redownloads them on start.

WHY ARE BROWSERS SO SHIT

use profile-sync-daemon

divide it to 15 and multiply with 600 idiot

>buggy
Nigger I don't think you even comprehend what we're talking about here

this world killed opera presto

this world doesn't deserve a good browser

>he fell for the fireshit meme

Why when there's chromium which is free as in freedom?

>he didn't fix this when he first got his SSD
>not having his entire cache stored in ram with disk cache turned off

A modern SSD has a lifespan of over 700 terabytes worth of writes, some can last even up to 1 or 2 petabytes for certain models. At 10 gigabytes per day it would take almost 200 years to kill an SSD. Don't worry about it.

>Update 1: We are testing other browsers. Currently in the middle of a Chrome Version 52.0.2743.116 m test. We have been able to see a pace of over 24GB/ day of writes on this machine

Chrome botnet is writing 2x as much, killing your drives even faster but the article is about Firefox killing your drives, which is a huge lie

>SSD memer in full damage control mode

>THEY FELL FOR THE SSD MEME

HDD MASTER RACE

>chromium
>free as in freedom

TOP KEK

More like 72TB until they switch to the read-only mode.

>the best thing with ssds is applications startup time and reactivity
>has ssd
>installs the most used application on the HDD
That's the most retarded thing I heard this month

>72TB
>the lowest tier Samsung SSD I put in someones computer a few days ago has a warranty up to 100TB
Nice meme

both Firefox and Chrome opened 24/7 since I got this SSD. Almost 19TB writes. Still 100%. Love you Samsung.

>All four Intel 600p SSDs ship with a five-year warranty and have the same 72-terabyte TBW endurance rating. The TBW rating means the drive can only absorb up to 72TB of data during its lifetime. This is only the second time we've encountered an entire product series that employs a blanket TBW rating. To put this into perspective, the 128GB OCZ VX500 from a recent review also features a 72 TBW rating, but the 1TB VX500 offers up to 592 TBW. 72TB of data writes may or may not sound like a lot to you, but this is a very low endurance rating compared to other 1TB SSDs.
>How Intel's consumer SSDs expire once you surpass the endurance threshold is troubling. In an almost over-zealous move to protect user data, Intel instituted a feature on many of its existing SSDs that automatically switches it to a read-only mode once you surpass the endurance threshold. Surprisingly, the read-only state only lasts for a single boot cycle. After reboot, the SSD "locks" itself (which means you cannot access the data) to protect the user from any data loss due to the weakened flash. The operating system typically generates error notifications when an SSD switches into a read-only mode, so most users will restart without being aware that the SSD will be inaccessible upon the next reboot. The process to recover the data is unclear. We reached out to Intel to verify if the 600p also has this feature, but have yet to receive a response.
tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-600p-series-ssd-review,4738.html

Meanwhile the 80GB Intel X25-M SSDs from 2008 were rated for >200TB.
SSDs turned from expensive and long lasting premium products to massware that is meant to be released every few years.

Maybe if you're using a really old (or really small) SSD

Yeah, well don't buy Intel products then if they're being fags about it?

Just don't use Firefox. The heads are milking its cash until nobody use it anymore.

news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8836539&cid=51642315

There have been quite a few tests on this that show the actual life span of SSD's outlast their stated lifespan ratings by a fairly large amount

Thanks for your advice, Pajeet. Have 5 rupees in return. :^)

>he doesn't have a UPS

You do know 10GB a day is next to nothing for a modern SSD right? Unless you're a poorfag and bought cheap shit like the poorfag you are.

>it's not a problem because we can fix it by throwing more hardware at it

I didn't know Ubisoft employees posted on Cred Forums.

Spoken like a true pajeet living on the streets.

Firefox doesnt cache either. But Chrome has that auto-download pages thing that probably causes massive amounts of %temp% writes.

Don't act dumb.

session store handles things like back/forwards button, undo close tab/window, history, restore on quit/crash, not cookies. Disabling it would remove that functionality, if you're OK with that then go ahead and set the interval as high as you want.

>
Daily reminder or what?

>disable disk cache
>enable ram cache
????

Chromium writes even more and it's not even possible to disable it

>lose session
Who gives a shit? Do you do critical work in browser windows or something?

>using sjwfox in the year 2016 of our emperor trump

are you KIDDING ME?

Firefox already priorities RAM before disk and caching in RAM is already enabled.

>a retard answers another retard

Are you retarded? An hour has 60 minutes or was that a typo?

How does this not pound HDDs as well?

I have browser.sessionstore.interval set to 86400000 and I can still use back/forwards buttons, undo close tab/window, and history.

People are more worried about SSD use because they're expensive and early or shitty models have really limited lifespan.

Hard disks are not strictly limited based on the number of writes. They can theoretically write forever as long as the head and motors hold up for that long.

Keeping your profile folder on a hard disk is safer than an SSD but hard disks are also slower so firefox will be more sluggish

and?

He's partly wrong. Session store is used when firefox closes unexpectedly. It restores your browser windows and tabs and cached content if it was stored on disk.

Maybe I don't understand this well but do they write the sessions to disk even when there is no change? This seems a bit too frequent. I always thought it happened when you open a new tab.

Though thinking about it, on session restore my scroll position is often preserved.

I believe that's the current behavior. I think it was done that way to save power because checking for differences would require more CPU time. Also considering how frequently the session manager writes it could end up causing noticeable stutter in certain situations.

>tripcode
lmao

> checking differences
Can't this be done as a callback on tab open and tab close?

bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1304389

Here's a bug report about the problem

SSDKEKS ON SUICIDE WATCH

What is benefit of SSD?
Restarting my browser or os is rare occasion so a marginal amount of time saved is unimportant.
HDD I can have more space and less opaque secure deletion.

Literally any access to disk is faster on a SSD. So you see performance improvement not just on startup times but anything that accesses the disk. Everything combined, it's a much smoother experience.

People enjoy falling for the "X is old, use Y now" meme

>mfw chromecucks users can't change this setting>
>mfw 24 GB/day of writes from Chrome only

HAHAHA

WELCOME TO THE BOTNET

I bet you fags use 8.8.8.8 as your DNS server as well.

Is anyone here a hacker like me?

With SSD's you woudnt need to keep your PC on 24/7. You could turn it off during night and boot it up in the morning in secounds. Also it affects any disk access, not just load times.

Test

Won't most of my browser related stuff be in RAM most of the time?
Just curious what specific actions in browser would I see a speed up on. The only thing I notice getting bottlenecked is page loads and js which I don't think ssd would help with.

how to fix this on chrome? i like it better than firefox.

It's a known thing with all browsers OP. It's the user profile. Change its destination to an hdd. Who doesn't do this honestly?

Test what?

For me the reason I keep my PC on is not about boot times but about keeping everything I'm running up. I ought to try hibernating soon.

You can also just save your tabs as bookmarks in a designated session store folder and then when you start the browser click the "open all in tabs" button inside the folder. At least that's what I do in firefox.

Is there any reason to shut down pc except tiny power savings?

I don't. Why the fuck should I? Modern SSDs can withstand hundreds of terabytes of writes before going down. That 840 Pro TechReport took over a fucking petabyte of writes before it was killed. SSDs are not fragile little snowflakes. Stop thinking they are you dummy.

Well whatever. The user profile is 'the problem'. Do with that info as you want.

>all those people saying you can't disable it in Chrome
Literally the first link in Google.

Chrome writes are coming from places other than profile that are harder to access.

I was talking about the cache.

Noise.

Is there any reason to keep it on? I mean aside from the manchild "20 secounds of wait time is too long for my ADHD" excuses.

Parts wear. In extreme cases, heat.

26TB here and still 100% and no read or write slow downs. based samsung.

I was under impression that repeated restarts wear it more. Not that either is likely to be an issue in standard life time of a pc.

>with ssds you don't need to keep your pc on 24/7
Try again buddy SSDs lose data if they aren't turned on after some time

Unless they're kept at a very high temperature they are fine for years

unless you're storing your unused drives on the dashboard of your car in an Arizona summer you're going to be fine.

That might be true for engines, but not for computers.

> SSD is rated for ~125TB
> Firefox writing 10GB per day
> It will take over 30 years before it might kill my SSD
mfw

Well technically there would be a higher chance for a solder joint to go bad from repeated expanding & contracting from hot/cold cycles compared to it being always on, but it's extremely marginal.

>10GB
>A lot
Stop using shitty TLC SSDs.

This isn't even a problem for most modern TLC SSD's. The only people this effects are poorfags using SSD's from like 5+ years ago.

>The only people this effects are poorfags using SSD's from like 5+ years ago.
And the faggots who bought Kingston SSDs.

I have self-destructing cookies installed.

If you link an account doesn't it save all your open pages? If so then the best option is to have Chrome in a Ramdisk.

I have unlimited data quota so i forget how much i actually download over probably over 10TBs or more worth of stuff. So i'm not even sure how much longer my SSDs are gonna last with all the writing i'm doing.

SSD Life Pro.

Kingston SSD test resulting in 600TB data writes before beginning to fail:

techreport.com/review/27909/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-theyre-all-dead

Which is really low, but still most people wont reach 600TB.

They should test modern SSDs.

Now post v300 Kingston stats.

Holy shit, only 75,000 days until that burns through the 2.4 PBs of writes that Samsung SSDs have survived.

In a few hundred years my drive is FUCKED.

I wonder how much a 850 Pro would survive.

>10GB per day
You're aware that a modern SSD can take ~5000 TB of writes before failing? In other words, you'd have to have firefox running for over 1000 years for this to make a difference.

in b4 normies panic and turn off sessions or mass migrate to googleware because they don't understand NAND tech

This website screams early 2000s malware.

>98% wear leveling count
Oh no, your SSD will only last another 60 years

You should turn off your firefox profile immediately

These are older samsung SSDs. New ones (e.g. 850 Pro) have over twice as many rewrite cycles.

Its not freeware so its to be expected, but it works.

Ask for the crack in /sqt/.

>chrome writes twice as much and cant be turned off

That very article shows Chrome writes 12GB less per day.

How do you expect a multi-year endurance test to be using modern SSDs? They'd had to have access to future tech years before it was even available for the lifetime results to be out by now.

>Observing the Issue: Heavy SSD Writes from Firefox
>In my case, SSDLife notified me that 12GB was written to the SSD in one day.

>Update 1: We are testing other browsers. Currently in the middle of a Chrome Version 52.0.2743.116 m test.
>We have been able to see a pace of over 24GB/ day of writes on this machine

You might want to see a doctor about those reading/comprehension difficulties.

Are you even sure it's written on the ssd? A file wrote that much will probably be cached on the ram by the kernel anyway

Generally speaking, asynchronous writes go into RAM and are synced to disk over the course of the next few seconds.

Using asynchonrous writes doesn't reduce write bandwidth unless you're immediately overwriting the same data again with different data before it has a chance fo sync.

You should go back to school, apparently you didn't quite learn to read properly the first time through.

BOTNETFAGS BTFO

What features get disabled if I turn it off

stepped sine wave (the output that consumer UPSs deliver) + active PFC power supplies = not good

Can you cite that? I use consumer UPS units for all of my PCs and have never had any problems. But I'm also not sure what exactly you're referring to. Also, the UPS units I use are literally marketed for use with computers.

>Simulated sine wave output form produces a zero-output state during the phase change cycle resulting in a power "gap". This gap may cause power interruption for equipment with Active PFC power supplies when switching from AC power output to simulated sine wave output (battery mode).