Is Google's Chrome worthy of 500MB+ ssd space

Jleo

Jleo

Jleo

Associate
Joined
2 Jan 2004
Posts
942
Hi Guys,


A recent ssd sys drive install has me thinking about how tight fisted I should be with My Precioussss 250GB worth of 3D vertical NAND flash chips ;)

The Chrome installed files on the ssd was totaling half a gig for a browser is this Kerazzzy? so I'm considering sym linking it to a partition on a 7200rpm. Have any of you? anything I should consider before hand?

to admin if there was a better place for this post my sorriesss and please movesss it.

thank you
__
Gollum
 
Last edited:
Hey db,

I have been a Chrome user for a few years and do use the apps and such so it may not have actually expanded to 500MB 'til I logged in :D
 
I would not worry with 500MB on a 250GB SSD... Your browser is one of the most frequently used software so it makes sense for it to be on the SSD anyways.
 
as others have said keep it on the SSD for speed.

if your worried about space and you have nothing you need on the OS SSD disable system restore, clear out old windows updates, lower down the page file and disable hibernation etc
 
mortals said:
The software is free and most people have ~16GB of RAM these days :confused:
also is a lot faster so not sure about "no performance gains" :confused:
Click to expand...

You're not going to notice the difference between having a browser cache on a RAM disk vs on the SSD. There's absolutely no point having it anywhere except on the SSD.
 
My chrome install is 620 MB and I hardly use it... Just keep it on the SSD otherwise what is the point of having one if you won't use it
 
TheVoice said:
You're not going to notice the difference between having a browser cache on a RAM disk vs on the SSD. There's absolutely no point having it anywhere except on the SSD.
Click to expand...
ramdisk-charts.jpg

I notice the difference in chrome, especially when I have multiple windows & sessions open for web development.

~500MB/s vs ~7500MB/s is a pretty big difference.
Seems much more responsive & loading is quicker.

Probably depends how many tabs etc you have running I guess.
 
TheVoice said:
In a benchmark, sure. In real-world usage the difference won't be anything like that.
Click to expand...
Might be a variation with real-world usage but then that's pretty obvious...

I guess people should stop referencing benchmarks as something to assess/compare relative performance :rolleyes: :o
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the feed back guys and as it happens I found that even though the application could be sym-linked to a 7200rpm partition albeit with a start-up speed reduction. Chrome also stores and caches to the ssd in the appdata folder so what's 500MB when the app data folder is carrying 1.9GB :D
2eksljo.jpg
 
Last edited:
Jleo said:
Thanks for the feed back guys and as it happens I found that even though the application could be sym-linked to a 7200rpm partition albeit with a start-up speed reduction. Chrome also stores and caches to the ssd in the appdata folder so what's 500MB when the app data folder is carrying 1.9GB :D
2eksljo.jpg
Click to expand...
That is probably the user profile and cache (mainly cache)

My google folder in appdata is 160MB as I have cache on ramdisk.

I think the default for max cache size is 2GB, you can always use command line options to limit the size and also to relocate the cache.

--disk-cache-dir=
--disk-cache-size=

Really down to personal preference tho :)
 
TheVoice said:
They should when it's meaningless to do so, yes.
Click to expand...
Because disk IO is irrelevant when the browser is referencing a cache directory of 2GB :rolleyes:

If it makes no difference, why have mozilla implemented RAM caching to improve loading and rendering ?

When images are loaded, they can be cached so they don't need to be decoded or uncompressed to be redisplayed
This preference controls the maximum amount of memory to use for caching decoded images, messages, and chrome items (application user interface elements).
Click to expand...

The same with all the articles suggesting to move the cache to keep SSD writes down :confused:
Assuming that there is memory to spare, placing a browsers cache or complete profile to RAM offers significant advantages, making the browser even more responsive compared to its stock configuration.

Benefits include, among others:
reduced drive read/writes;
heightened responsive feel;
Click to expand...
 
mortals said:
That is probably the user profile and cache (mainly cache)

My google folder in appdata is 160MB as I have cache on ramdisk.

I think the default for max cache size is 2GB, you can always use command line options to limit the size and also to relocate the cache.

--disk-cache-dir=
--disk-cache-size=

Really down to personal preference tho :)
Click to expand...

Thanks must have a mosey at that :D

Update: Gig-savers :D
The feed back on the thread has been very useful guys, specifically info on your chrome folder sizes so I did some cleaning i.e. I had a look at the contents of my chrome folder and found unity.3d references with some alarmingly large files. Knowing that this related to games I inspected Chrome extensions and found a whole haul of old junk gaming and other extensions that I no longer use as a result of the clean-out the folder size went from 1.9GB to a tiny
20gzev4.jpg
 
Last edited:
mortals said:
The software is free and most people have ~16GB of RAM these days :confused:
also is a lot faster so not sure about "no performance gains" :confused:
Click to expand...

It costs more because RAM per GB is more than SSD per GB, which is more than HDD per GB. So in a situation where OP wants to save as much of his SSD GB's because he is "tight fisted", you've suggested going in the totally opposite direction and utilising storage that is even more costly than the SSD.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom