Adjust This Setting Before Firefox Wears Off Your SSD Drive.

Adjust This Setting Before Firefox Wears Off Your SSD Drive

Read more: http://news.softpedia.com/news/adjus...#ixzz4LNsGpt3u

Some fixes are available for Firefox Sergei Bobik of ServeTheHome , who discovered this issue, says there's a way to limit some of the write operations for the recovery.js file by tweaking one of Firefox's settings.
Adjusting this setting is easy. Users should type "about:config" in their address bar and press Enter. Here they should search for "browser.sessionstore.interval" and double-click the option to change it.
The default is "15000" which is 15 seconds, the interval at which Firefox re-writes the contents of the recovery.js file. One second is 1000, so if you want to set this to five minutes you should enter 300000, and if you want to use 30 minutes you should enter 1800000.

Thanks for heads up Beeman! I will surely follow this thread to see all the comments.

Original article: Firefox is eating your SSD - here is how to fix it

From the comments section, the FF devs are aware of the problem, but....

Yoric
September 23, 2016 at 8:34 am
Hi, I’m one of the Firefox developers who was in charge of Session Restore, so I’m one of the culprits of this heavy SSD I/O. To make a long story short: we are aware of the problem, but fixing it for real requires completely re-architecturing Session Restore. That’s something we haven’t done yet, as Session Restore is rather safety-critical for many users, so this would need to be done very carefully, and with plenty of manpower.

Read the rest, yourselves.

Cliff S said:

From the comments section, the FF devs are aware of the problem, but....
Read the rest, yourselves.

Thanks Cliff! I would assume, that cutting the data flow to half supposed to be safe in most situation. And the gain is maxed...

Got mine done.

And now we're finding that Chrome is even worse.

Wynona said:

Got mine done.

And now we're finding that Chrome is even worse.

It's about the same, according to original article ...

AndreTen said:

It's about the same, according to original article ...

Actually, Andre, it's twice as bad:

At the beginning of the article, he says, "In my case, SSDLife notified me that 12GB was written to the SSD in one day."

At the end of the article, he says, "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. . ."

It looks to me like he's using the same machine for both tests.

Wynona said:

Actually, Andre, it's twice as bad:

At the beginning of the article, he says, "In my case, SSDLife notified me that 12GB was written to the SSD in one day."

At the end of the article, he says, "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. . ."

It looks to me like he's using the same machine for both tests.

Yes, but was he using browser in exactly the same way? After all, we are talking about browser restore (and cache) data. It is heavily dependent on browser use.