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

[sanaxe1]

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.

If you already have the ram installed its free......

 

[mortals]

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.

I'm not sure you understand the idea behind keeping SSD reads/writes down or that cache is temporary storage.

The whole "It costs more because RAM per GB is more than SSD per GB" seems a bit of a strange argument to make when a SSD has a limited number of reads/writes (I guess they are a lot better now but still limited)
There's also the fact most will have a lot of RAM to spare. (+ RAMDisks are a lot faster)

It would be different if you had to buy RAM specifically for the purpose.

 

[Gammawolf]

If you already have the ram installed its free......

You might want to think about that logic again because there is a cost to everything. Whether this is based on monetary costs, wear and tear or time.
The objects purchase price doesn't change based on ownership length. It will always have the same initial purchase price which should be factored into subsequent use case scenarios.

I'm not sure you understand the idea behind keeping SSD reads/writes down or that cache is temporary storage.

You've missed the entire point of OP's post, not in a single place does he talk about read/write cycles. You also seem to not understand that it's a completely pointless argument to justify moving browser cache based on read/write cycles. If your browser cache is going to break your SSD due to read/write cycles then I'd suggest you get a refund as you've got an SSD that is not fit for purpose.

There's also the fact most will have a lot of RAM to spare. (+ RAMDisks are a lot faster)

Using opinions as facts eh? In that case:
There's also the fact most will have a lot of SSD to spare.
OP need not worry, he's got lots of SSD space to spare, because it's a fact.

 

[mortals]

Why would you put a browser cache on a ramdisk which costs more for no performance gains?

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 might want to think about that logic again because there is a cost to everything. Whether this is based on monetary costs, wear and tear or time.
The objects purchase price doesn't change based on ownership length. It will always have the same initial purchase price which should be factored into subsequent use case scenarios.

Seems like it's not just me who is missing what point you are making by saying about something being expensive (when it's already installed)

If you already have the ram installed its free......

If your browser cache is going to break your SSD due to read/write cycles then I'd suggest you get a refund as you've got an SSD that is not fit for purpose.

No one has said anything about hardware breaking due to browser cache ..... ?????

There's also the fact most will have a lot of RAM to spare. (+ RAMDisks are a lot faster)

Using opinions as facts eh?

Do many people not have RAM to spare

You've missed the entire point of OP's post, not in a single place does he talk about read/write cycles. You also seem to not understand that it's a completely pointless argument to justify moving browser cache based on read/write cycles.

The op mentioned he had a 2GB cache folder and asked if he could reduce it .....

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

Spoiler

Suggesting something which has been suggested by many sources across the internet doesn't really seem that offensive, especially when it moves some strain on a component by utilizing something that would otherwise be spare ...

As is documented on other sites (which I have quoted), moving cache can help.
Whether people chose to do so is up to them but replying with "which costs more for no performance gains?" and giving no references seems more like trolling than helping.

 

[Pawnless Endgame]

Guys, you need to use the portable version!

http://portableapps.com/apps/internet/google_chrome_portable

Installs at 150MB flat, and I can confirm that myself.

The beauty of portable is that you don't have to reinstall/configure it when it's time to reformat. I also run portable 7-Zip, Audacity, Firefox, DVDStyler, Media Player Classic, Winamp, Pidgin, VLC, GIMP, uTorrent and Foxit for the PDF reader. Why the hell do you need a 200MB+ program (read:Adobe!) to open a PDF when Foxit can do it at 9MB?

The only program I don't have as portable is MS Office. That lark has to be installed unfortunately.

 

[TheVoice]

Because disk IO is irrelevant when the browser is referencing a cache directory of 2GB

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

The same with all the articles suggesting to move the cache to keep SSD writes down

Because most PCs still run on hard-drives where the difference between accessing the HDD or accessing RAM will be noticeable to the user.

I'm not sure you understand the idea behind keeping SSD reads/writes down or that cache is temporary storage.

Worrying about read/writes is largely pointless these days. The purpose of the cache is to improve page load times when pages are revisited, hence why it's stored on a disk and not on volatile memory.

If you like your RAM disks and RAM caches then that's totally fine, but for most people it's not going to be particularly beneficial or necessary.

 

[mortals]

Because most PCs still run on hard-drives where the difference between accessing the HDD or accessing RAM will be noticeable to the user.

I think I went a bit OTT with my reply so sorry if I sounded a bit offensive.
(just took Gammawolf's comment re: no benefit + expensive)

Worrying about read/writes is largely pointless these days. The purpose of the cache is to improve page load times when pages are revisited, hence why it's stored on a disk and not on volatile memory.

My post regarding cache being temporary + SSD reads/writes was really regarding gammawolf's post asking why people would use ramdisk for cache.

 

[chaparral]

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

So I guess my cache folder has got a bit to big...