The Vent and Rant Thread

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Why on earth would you do this? The only reason I can think about is to prevent others from looking into the profile, assuming you store it into an archive that has a password. I think Firefox won't be much faster running from a RAM-drive than when running from an SSD. I wouldn't even be surprised if Firefox just reads and caches its profile in RAM on its own.

The only thing I'd use RAM-drives for are thousands and thousands of small temporary files that don't need to be saved. Maybe I should try and set up one for Calibre's Edit Book functionality, as it spits out a lot of small files when opening a book.

Well, on linux /tmp should already be automounted as a tmpfs most places, if not it is extraordinarily easy to setup.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Subjectively, it seems faster, but how much is a good question. I don't offhand know how to really measure it.

The first iteration simply placed the Firefox cache there. Firefox makes that easy. Go into about:config, and create a new string preference called browser.cache.disk.parent_directory. Set the value of the preference to the location where you want the cache to be. (Here, that's Z:\FFramdisk.) Firefox will create the cache where that preference specifies.

I don't bother to preserve the cache between boots, though I could. I have a 100mbps cable modem connection, and it's simpler to let FF rebuild from scratch. You can also specify the maximum cache size in about:config, but I haven't done so. Thus far, the largest I've seen it get is about 190MB.

I also have Google Chrome set to have cache on the ramdisk, but that was a more complex exercise, because Chrome doesn't provide a way to specify where cache lives. Doing it required OS level hacking.

NTFS5 supports *nix style hard links and symbolic links, but does not expose the functionality by default. You need an advanced utility package from MS or a third-party offering to use the functionality. I use a freeware utility called Link Shell Extension from William Schinagl. LSE adds Pick Link Source and Drop Link As selections to the right-click context menu in Explorer.

Chrome attempts to create the cache directory under the profile directory on the HD. (Here, that's in C:\Users\Dennis\AppData\Local\Google\Chrome\User Data\Default\Cache.) I created a symlink from the HD cache directory to the ramdisk. Chrome follows the symlink, and puts the cache on the ramdisk.


The info isn't that critical or permanent. This was an annoyance, not a disaster.

It was also a sharp pointy reminder that accidents do happen, and I'm thinking about ways to automagically update the profile zip on the HD outside of the standard process. Right now, a shutdown script does it when Windows is shutdown/rebooted, but that doesn't help in a power fail because the script never gets run.)
______
Dennis

I understand the general idea.

But while I could totally hear offloading the cache to a ramdisk, how much faster is the profile itself going to get?

And is it worth it even for the annoyance?
As for me, losing my profile would be a bit more than an annoyance.

...

On the matter of zipping vs. copying, I can't help but wonder whether something like rsync would be more efficient than either.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

I understand the general idea.

But while I could totally hear offloading the cache to a ramdisk, how much faster is the profile itself going to get?

Good question.

If the profile was located on the SSD, the answer would be "not much at all". But it doesn't live there. This machine has both SSD and HD, is is set up so that most data lives on the HD.

I've never cared for Mozilla's defaults in where it puts things, like burying the profile in a hidden directory under the user's login directory. I use custom profiles, and I use Profile Manager to specify what they are called and where they live. There's a \Mozilla directory on the HD, with related stuff beneath it:

\Mozilla
   Extensions
      Firefox
      SeaMonkey
      Thunderbird
   Profiles
      Firefox
      SeaMonkey
      Thunderbird

<...>

(It's a bit more complex, but you get the general idea...)

Since the profile is constantly open and read from/written to while FF is active, ramdisk is an improvement over HD.

Whether it's enough of an improvement is an open question. At some point, I may just move the profile to SSD, leave only the cache on the ramdisk, and see what happens.

And is it worth it even for the annoyance?

The jury is out on that...

As for me, losing my profile would be a bit more than an annoyance.

If I had actually lost it and had to recreate from scratch, I'd be chewing ten penny nails and spitting brads about now. What I lost was the copy on the ramdisk. The copy it was loaded from was still in the zip file on the HD, but was out of date.

On the matter of zipping vs. copying, I can't help but wonder whether something like rsync would be more efficient than either.

It's a question of speed. Tests I performed on the older machine where I started doing this showed that is was an order of magnitude faster to extract the profile to the ramdisk from a zip archive than it was to do a block copy. I have a couple of "fast copy" utilities here, but unzipping from archive still wins. I'd be startled if rsync did better. (It was similarly faster to zip it back from ramdisk than copy it.)

On the old machine, the script that stored the profile back to archive did things like create several days worth of named backups, so I could potentially delete the copy on the ramdisk and restart from an earlier version. (I made use of that on occasion when something I did in a session corrupted the profile.)
______
Dennis

[CRussel]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

NTFS5 supports *nix style hard links and symbolic links, but does not expose the functionality by default. You need an advanced utility package from MS or a third-party offering to use the functionality. I use a freeware utility called Link Shell Extension from William Schinagl. LSE adds Pick Link Source and Drop Link As selections to the right-click context menu in Explorer.
______
Dennis

Hard links are and have been supported since the very first iteration of NTFS. And can be created with the built-in command "mklink". In Windows 10 support for hard and symbolic links for files and directories, along with junctions for directories, is built in to PowerShell. (New-Item -Type {HardLink | SymbolicLink | Junction} ).


The incremental value of a RAMDisk over an SSD is trivial and could actually be a detriment if not sized perfectly, since Windows is actually quite smart about using available RAM for caching.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by CRussel

Hard links are and have been supported since the very first iteration of NTFS.

ER, got a cite for that?

AFAIK, hard link support first appeared in NTFS5, which was not the first iteration of NTFS to reach the world. IIRC, WindowsNT 3.51 had NTFS4.

And can be created with the built-in command "mklink". In Windows 10 support for hard and symbolic links for files and directories, along with junctions for directories, is built in to PowerShell. (New-Item -Type {HardLink | SymbolicLink | Junction} ).

Link Shell Extension allows creation of hard links on XP, and symlinks on Win7. (Though a Japanese developer created a driver with source that makes hard links and symlinks work on Win2K.

Mklink is a built-in on Win7/8/10, but not prior, and is a command line tool. The advantage to LSE is integration with Windows Explorer.

And who uses Power Shell who isn't a developer or sysadmin?

The incremental value of a RAMDisk over an SSD is trivial and could actually be a detriment if not sized perfectly, since Windows is actually quite smart about using available RAM for caching.

In general, I advise folks to add RAM and let Windows manage it. Running a ramdisk is a "Because I have extra memory to play with, can do it, and have a use case for it."
______
Dennis

[Rumpelteazer]

One of the restaurants around the corner from us has been sold and the new owners have started to renovate the building this week.

On Wednesday and Thursday they started around the time I get up at 8am. Our house is very deep and the back of our house is right next to that restaurant. This morning, however, they started in the attic shortly after 6am. The problem: my bedroom neighbours their attic.

I do have to admit that there is one good thing coming from this renovation. It seems like the students living over the restaurant have been (temporarily?) kicked out.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Overkill, and cron doesn't exist on Windows unless I want to run something like Cygwin.

Oh, I assumed you were doing this on Linux, as you mentioned Ubuntu a few times, and start and shutdown scripts. Windows does, however, have a Task Scheduler.

You could also start Firefox using a batch script that opens and saves the archive as soon as Firefox starts and closes. Then you won't even need a startup or shutdown script. (Or are you doing this already? I am assuming the startup and shutdown scripts run when starting and stopping the computer.)

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Oh, I assumed you were doing this on Linux, as you mentioned Ubuntu a few times, and start and shutdown scripts. Windows does, however, have a Task Scheduler.

I dual-boot Win7 Pro and Ubuntu. This is on the Win7 side.

While you can create a ramdisk on Linux, I haven't.

And while Windows has Task Scheduler, that's not what I use. Win7 Pro includes Group Policy Editor, and GPO can define things that run on boot and on shutdown. A GPO script loads the ramdisk on boot, and another stores the contents back to zip files on shutdown.

The latter is the critical bit. I don't know of a way to set something up in Task Scheduler that happens on shutdown/reboot.

You could also start Firefox using a batch script that opens and saves the archive as soon as Firefox starts and closes. Then you won't even need a startup or shutdown script. (Or are you doing this already? I am assuming the startup and shutdown scripts run when starting and stopping the computer.)

Correct. My scripts load the ramdisk on boot, and store back to zip files on shutdown.

And I probably could use a batch file wrapper, but it would be complicated by the fact that the same technique is applied to SeaMonkey and Thunderbird, and there are several versions of Firefox - release, developer edition, and nightly.

(Not impossible, though. I've done similar things with variables to specify targets. Hmmm...)
______
Dennis

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Oh, I assumed you were doing this on Linux, as you mentioned Ubuntu a few times, and start and shutdown scripts. Windows does, however, have a Task Scheduler.

Was this not the right clue?
The only Ubuntu mention is about a dual boot.

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

That's annoying.

My desktop system is a Win7 Pro box with a quad core Xeon CPU and 8GB RAM. Win7 and Ubuntu dual boot from an SSD.

[...Win10 upgrade mess...]

With 8GB RAM, I have enough to play a bit. I found a 64 bit ramdisk driver that works in Win7, and there's a 1GB ramdisk seen as Z: with an NTFS filesystem. I'm set up to have Firefox's browser cache and profile on the ramdisk. A startup script loads the FF profile to the ramdisk from a zip archive on the hard drive, A shutdown script zips it back to catch profile changes made in that session. (I have fast broadband and don't bother preserving cache.)

The profile in the zip archive hadn't been updated in a bit, so when Windows came back up and I ran Firefox, it was a time machine trip to days back. Various updates made since the last time the zip was updated vanished.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Was this not the right clue?
The only Ubuntu mention is about a dual boot.

Yes, but I assumed that he was also doing the same thing under Linux and wanted them to work in the same way. I was confused about boot and shutdown scripts though; most people who run Windows don't know Windows can do that, and not even every Windows version is able to do it. Linux can run boot and shutdown scripts very easily (at least, in InitV it can).

I'm still wondering why someone would go through the aggravation of setting up a RAM-disk for the Firefox profile...

[CRussel]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

ER, got a cite for that?

No, and not going to bother going to look it up. I personally created hard links in NT 4 and in Windows 2000, Server 2003, and XP. It was fairly hidden in earlier versions (I used Interix to do it in NT4/2000 though there was a resource kit tool that would do it as well, IIRC), but I have been personally told by one of the original NTFS developers that the capability was always there, just not exposed.

First use of symlinks that I'm aware of was Interix (a third party UNIX / POSIX subsystem that MS then bought), and then in Microsoft Services for UNIX (when they included the Interix subsystem in SFU). The hard links that Interix/SFU created were visible to the Windows user, but the symlinks were NOT (though, curiously, the junctions were). Symlinks that were visible to the Windows user were added in Vista, and exposed in Windows 7. (On a side note, the mount points or junctions that SFU/Interix created were visible to the Windows user, but they were BUGGY as all get out. They used "reparse points" and these weren't properly handled until the Vista/7 version of NTFS. This also affected the NFS file system, by the way.)

Link Shell Extension allows creation of hard links on XP, and symlinks on Win7. (Though a Japanese developer created a driver with source that makes hard links and symlinks work on Win2K.

Hard links were always there. It would take a special driver to make symlinks work before Vista/Win7. Which is why hard links I created with Interix in NT4 were completely visible and behaved "normally" to the regular Windows user.

Mklink is a built-in on Win7/8/10, but not prior, and is a command line tool. The advantage to LSE is integration with Windows Explorer.

I would have said that Vista was the introduction of mklink, but I can't prove it without spinning up a VM and that's more work than it's worth. As for a GUI tool being better or an advantage? Sorry, you'll never get me to agree to that.

And who uses Power Shell who isn't a developer or sysadmin?

Any power user who wants to get stuff done fast and efficiently without having to click so much that they develop an RSI.

FWIW, I've been using PowerShell since before there was a public beta of Monad. And I was a hard core Korn shell user before that, even in Windows.

In general, I advise folks to add RAM and let Windows manage it. Running a ramdisk is a "Because I have extra memory to play with, can do it, and have a use case for it."
______
Dennis

Fair enough. I think it's a waste, but it's your RAM. And let's face it, RAM is cheap. However, spending money on SSDs v. HDDs is probably the single biggest speed up you can do these days if you're still using conventional rotating media.

And all of this is completely off-topic for this (admittedly broad) thread.

[wodin]

Yawn... everything I didn't want to know 'bout RAM drives and browsers.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Yes, but I assumed that he was also doing the same thing under Linux and wanted them to work in the same way.

I haven't gone that far because I spend more time on the Windows side.

Next step on that path would be having the Mozilla profiles set up so the same one would be used from either OS. (Ubuntu can see the Windows file system via ntfs3g. I have an open source driver that lets Windows see the ext4 partition Ubuntu lives on. But the path of least resistance would be accessing the Windows files from Linux.)

I was confused about boot and shutdown scripts though; most people who run Windows don't know Windows can do that, and not even every Windows version is able to do it. Linux can run boot and shutdown scripts very easily (at least, in InitV it can).

The Windows Pro versions support Group Policy Editor. Home versions do not. It was a reason I was pleased the current desktop came with Win7 Pro.

I'm still wondering why someone would go through the aggravation of setting up a RAM-disk for the Firefox profile...

It wasn't aggravation. I'd been through the exercise before on a different box, and it's not hard to do.

Aggravation is what occurs when the content of the ramdisk gets trashed and the source it was loaded from isn't fully current.
______
Dennis

[covingtoncat73]

I have once again failed to win the Powerball.

[covingtoncat73]

I want tattoos but have 3 problems: 1) Pain. I might have them start on me only to have to quit before they finish the tatt. 2) $$$ 3) Bicuspid Aortic Valve. I have one. I understand tatts are problematic with BAV and you need to talk to the Dr. and be on antibiotics. to get a tattoo.
That being said, I keep getting good ideas.
1. “Vulnerant omnes, ultima necat.” (All [hours] wound, the last kills.)
-Old saying on Roman clocks, popularized by Neil Gaiman in American Gods.
2. Another Latin by way of Gaiman: Omnia mutantur, nihil interit (from Ovid, popularized in Sandman. It means everything changes, nothing perishes).
3. A butterfly of some kind.
4. My cat (done like one of these but Cinder is a tortoiseshell) http://hellogiggles.com/raddest-cat-tattoos/
5. A bowl of pertunias with "oh no, not again" under it (from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy).
6. These birds my great grandmother drew as a child
7. "All life is One" from Bryson's A Brief History of Everything with a small globe.
8. "What is any ocean but a multitude of drops" from Cloud Atlas (with raindrops or something).
9. A half-read book is a half-finished love affair from Cloud Atlas. With a book.
10. If I do get a tattoo, I'll probably start with a semi-colon (small, simple, probably inexpensive).