Deleting Cache - Mozilla

This is a discussion on Deleting Cache - Mozilla ; twillers wrote: > Christian Biesinger wrote: >> twillers wrote: >>> I've deleted 50 megs of cache from more then one persons computer. >>> The usual reply is, "I didn't know I was supposed to do that". >> >> That's because ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 49

Thread: Deleting Cache

  1. Re: Deleting Cache

    twillers wrote:
    > Christian Biesinger wrote:
    >> twillers wrote:
    >>> I've deleted 50 megs of cache from more then one persons computer.
    >>> The usual reply is, "I didn't know I was supposed to do that".

    >>
    >> That's because you ARE NOT supposed to do that!

    >
    > Christian, In my opinion I think your wrong. If you weren't supposed to
    > delete it, there wouldn't be a way of doing so in preferences.


    That's invalid reasoning. Our UI is (unfortunately?) not the type were
    every button is safe/wise/necessary to click.

    For what it's worth, Christian is pretty knowledgeable about Gecko stuff.

    Chris

  2. Re: Deleting Cache

    Chris Thomas wrote:
    > twillers wrote:
    >> Christian Biesinger wrote:
    >>> twillers wrote:
    >>>> I've deleted 50 megs of cache from more then one persons computer.
    >>>> The usual reply is, "I didn't know I was supposed to do that".
    >>>
    >>> That's because you ARE NOT supposed to do that!

    >>
    >> Christian, In my opinion I think your wrong. If you weren't supposed
    >> to delete it, there wouldn't be a way of doing so in preferences.

    >
    > That's invalid reasoning. Our UI is (unfortunately?) not the type were
    > every button is safe/wise/necessary to click.
    >
    > For what it's worth, Christian is pretty knowledgeable about Gecko stuff.
    >
    > Chris


    Chris,
    I am in no way questioning Christian's, or anyone else's
    expertise. There really is is no right way to handle the cache issue.
    The thing is; for every argument for not deleting cache, there is at
    least one, for deleting it. It boils down to personal preference, and
    common sense. Just do a Google search: "Why should I delete browser
    cache?" Any number of sites site, security/privacy, and increased
    speed/performance, as reasons for deleting cache at the end of a
    session. They must be saying these things for a reason. They all can't
    be wrong.

  3. Re: Deleting Cache

    Christian Biesinger wrote:
    > twillers wrote:
    >>>> It only removed stuff when it got near the limit, and then only
    >>>> enough so that new stuff fits in.

    >>
    >> According to you, why remove it a all?

    >
    > So that new stuff fits in.
    >
    >> You are correct, with regards to the cache size being limited to the
    >> preset limit. My IE is set at 100 meg, and as far as I can remember,
    >> it's always been that way. I almost never use it. So that being said;
    >> what would be the reason, or advantage of keeping 100 megs of useless
    >> cache that dates back months ago, on the computer.

    >
    > The point of the cache is to load pages faster that you visited before.
    > I don't know about you, but in my case there are certain pages I visit
    > very often, and it's good that they load faster :-)
    >
    >> Most of which were cached by others using the computer. The same could
    >> be said for SM,(50 meg) or any other browser for that matter. What I
    >> can tell you is; I know where one person does his banking, what
    >> credit union another one uses, and what he bought from an online auto
    >> part store, and the list goes on. I'm not sure what I would find if I
    >> put my mind to it. Just out of curiosity; would this be considered a
    >> Security or privacy issue?

    >
    > Gecko doesn't cache SSL pages to disk, which should cover most of your
    > use cases. I'd call that privacy issues. But that stuff is also stored
    > in the history, and if you don't want that others can potentially see
    > pages you visited, you should clear cache and history, or use different
    > accounts on the computer (and a filesystem with access control).
    >
    >> The bottom line is; I see only advantages for purging cache on a
    >> regular basis, and very little to no, disadvantage to doing it.

    >
    > Previously visited pages load slower, or not at all (when in offline mode).


    Christian, when you start a new session of SM, doesn't it check and load
    a new page if it's newer then the one stored in cache? And after that it
    will use the one in cache, for the remainder of the session, assuming
    you didn't change the default? ("check once per session") Take a person
    with 20 or 30 megs of stored cache; what percentage of that cache
    actually gets reused to load a page, verses just taking up space? If you
    only go to the same pages, and they never update from session to
    session, the cached files probably get reused all the time. But if you
    surf the web a lot, or if a lot of different people use the computer,
    the percentage is going to switch the other way. There are going to be a
    lot of files that are just taking up space.

    If what I've said is true; what harm would it do if those people purged
    the cache at the end of their session? I think the advantages would far
    out way any disadvantages; whatever the reason for doing it.

    As far as privacy versus security goes, I think it goes hand in hand.
    You brought up a good point with regards to history. Your right; you
    should delete it at the end of a session if you are worried about
    privacy, or security. At least that we agree on that. :-)


  4. Re: Deleting Cache

    twillers wrote:
    > and increased
    > speed/performance, as reasons for deleting cache at the end of a
    > session. They must be saying these things for a reason. They all can't
    > be wrong.


    I don't understand how cache can make anything _slower_. That would
    totally miss the point of cache. I'd go as far as saying that's a bug.

  5. Re: Deleting Cache

    twillers wrote:
    > Christian, when you start a new session of SM, doesn't it check and load
    > a new page if it's newer then the one stored in cache? And after that it
    > will use the one in cache, for the remainder of the session, assuming
    > you didn't change the default? ("check once per session")


    The default is "When out of date"... That means a) it is possible that
    it never checks with the server during a session, or b) everytime, or c)
    something else (Depending on server headers)

    > Take a person
    > with 20 or 30 megs of stored cache; what percentage of that cache
    > actually gets reused to load a page, verses just taking up space? If you
    > only go to the same pages, and they never update from session to
    > session, the cached files probably get reused all the time. But if you
    > surf the web a lot, or if a lot of different people use the computer,
    > the percentage is going to switch the other way. There are going to be a
    > lot of files that are just taking up space.


    Yeah. That's true. My hard disk is large enough that I can afford that.
    (Remember that even if the page content changes, things like scripts,
    images and style sheets may stay the same)

    > If what I've said is true; what harm would it do if those people purged
    > the cache at the end of their session? I think the advantages would far
    > out way any disadvantages; whatever the reason for doing it.


    Not for me, but I guess it may for them. Really, the only reason I see
    to purge the cache is for privacy reasons.


  6. Re: Deleting Cache (0 byte web bugs from 1969!?)

    twillers wrote:
    >>> The bottom line is; I see only advantages for purging cache on a
    >>> regular basis, and very little to no, disadvantage to doing it.


    > Again, you are right. The pages that have data stored in cache
    > should still load fast. What about new pages that are loaded
    > for the first time? The closer cache gets to being maxed out
    > the slower new pages seem to load.


    > If what I've said is true; what harm would it do if those
    > people purged the cache at the end of their session? I think
    > the advantages would far out way any disadvantages; whatever
    > the reason for doing it.


    Statements like these indicate you don't understand what cache
    is and refuse to accept the word of knowledgeable people that
    the time cost for a caches miss or cache add is
    **inconsequential**. May I suggest:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cache and
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_cache (client side)

    > Christian, when you start a new session of SM, doesn't it check and load
    > a new page if it's newer then the one stored in cache? And after that it
    > will use the one in cache, for the remainder of the session, assuming
    > you didn't change the default? ("check once per session") Take a person
    > with 20 or 30 megs of stored cache; what percentage of that cache
    > actually gets reused to load a page, verses just taking up space? If you
    > only go to the same pages, and they never update from session to
    > session, the cached files probably get reused all the time.


    I don't think it has been spelled out in this thread that caching
    actually operates at the URL level, not the page level. I.e. the
    HTML page you are loading and all the elements (typically graphical)
    which make up the page are cached individually. Browse for a while
    then look at cache contents via about:cache. The ramification is
    that if you go to a graphical site, when you access the first page,
    all elements of it will get cached. When you go to the second page,
    all the boilerplate logos and other graphics (even ads, if common)
    will come from your cache, only the unique components will have
    to be pulled down from the net. Pages that have common content
    will be access faster and use less cache.

    It is also worth mentioning that web content has various mechanisms
    for indicating to the browser what should be cached and if so, for
    how long. Clearing caches as a way to avoid stale content is
    unnecessary.


    Oh, weird, I've got a lot of content, seemingly all redirections,
    which have expires dates in 1969. (Groovy!) Is this a bug?

    Key:

    Data size: 1587 bytes
    Fetch count: 1
    Last modified: 2006-02-17 17:58:29
    Expires: 1969-12-31 19:00:00

    <>'s added to URL to avoid wrap...

    And lookie, lookie here, web-bugs:

    Key: http://wwwX.lduhtrp.net/image-1552776-10356332X
    Data size: 0 bytes
    Fetch count: 1
    Last modified: 2006-02-18 08:51:46
    Expires: 1969-12-31 19:00:00

    Key: http://wwwX.afcyhf.com/image-1557121-10356421X
    Data size: 0 bytes
    Fetch count: 1
    Last modified: 2006-02-18 09:11:54
    Expires: 1969-12-31 19:00:00

    Key: http://wwwX.awltovhc.com/image-1557121-10303861X
    Data size: 0 bytes
    Fetch count: 1
    Last modified: 2006-02-18 10:11:33
    Expires: 1969-12-31 19:00:00

    Key: http://wwwX.tqlkg.com/image-1557121-10366251X
    Data size: 0 bytes
    Fetch count: 1
    Last modified: 2006-02-18 10:11:34
    Expires: 1969-12-31 19:00:00


    Now THAT's a privacy issue. ("X"s added to each URL to invalidate
    them.) Garbage like this IS a good reason to clear cache on a
    session basis. Why are things with an expires date in 1969
    cached? Are there settings/tools to prevent or clear cache of
    these things??


    > But if you
    > surf the web a lot, or if a lot of different people use the computer,
    > the percentage is going to switch the other way. There are going to be a
    > lot of files that are just taking up space.


    But they will do that no matter what. If an element is in cache, it
    will display from cache. If an element is not in cache, it will be
    downloaded from the server, displayed and cached. (If cache was
    full, older element(s) will be removed to make way.) Cache is
    always used in some way. All clearing cache does is add network
    access to the time cost of accessing pages. And in either case,
    cache will fill up as you use the browser. There is no space
    saving, unless you always browse for less than cache-size worth
    of web content. Being tight on disk space would be a reason to
    reduce cache size, but repeatedly clearing it seems futile.

    Perhaps you are under the mis-impression that the whole 50 meg
    (or whatever) of cache must be searched on each access. No,
    what is searched is a list of the cached URLs. That's a relatively
    small amount of data to search, and I'm sure it happens pretty
    much at memory speeds. Even if the list is on disk, the effect
    of OS and disk drive caching should make the search happen at
    memory speed.

    > As far as privacy versus security goes, I think it goes hand in hand.
    > You brought up a good point with regards to history. Your right; you
    > should delete it at the end of a session if you are worried about
    > privacy, or security. At least that we agree on that. :-)


    Privacy is a good reason to clear all cache/history-like data.
    When I started this, I was thinking only in terms of someone
    rummaging the cache on your machine. Discovering the cached
    web bugs leads _me_ to consider cache flushing or looking for
    a tool to prevent/get rid of them.

    Another reason to clear caches would be backups. Backing up
    caches and other temporary files is truly a waste of time and
    space.


    Rich
    --
    SeaMonkey - Surfing the net has never been so suite!

  7. Re: Deleting Cache

    Christian Biesinger wrote:
    > twillers wrote:
    >> and increased speed/performance, as reasons for deleting cache at the
    >> end of a session. They must be saying these things for a reason. They
    >> all can't be wrong.

    >
    > I don't understand how cache can make anything _slower_. That would
    > totally miss the point of cache. I'd go as far as saying that's a bug.


    There is a point when the number of files in a cache can grow to the
    point where the processing time to figure out if a page or image is IN
    the cache takes longer than the time to go get it.

    It is dependent on the speed of the CPU, disk drive, the amount of ram,
    the speed of the connection, the speed of the server delivering the
    page, etc... Thus it's very hard to quantify. Back in the late 90s a
    large cache would really slow down a typical computer. These days not so
    much or almost none unless you start getting 10,000s of files in the cache.

  8. Re: Deleting Cache

    DLR wrote:
    > There is a point when the number of files in a cache can grow to the
    > point where the processing time to figure out if a page or image is IN
    > the cache takes longer than the time to go get it.


    Finding out whether something is cached is an O(1) operation afaik.


  9. Re: Deleting Cache

    DLR wrote:
    > It is dependent on the speed of the CPU, disk drive, the amount of ram,
    > the speed of the connection, the speed of the server delivering the
    > page, etc... Thus it's very hard to quantify. Back in the late 90s a
    > large cache would really slow down a typical computer. These days not so
    > much or almost none unless you start getting 10,000s of files in the cache.


    I have been on peoples computers running IE, where I've deleted their
    temporary Internet files, because pages were loading very slowly. Some
    have taken a couple of minutes to complete the process. After it
    finished, the pages loaded quicker. These were all pentium based, with
    at least 256 of ram, and plenty of room left on the hard drive. When I
    asked if they ever deleted it previously, most didn't even know what
    cache was.

  10. Re: Deleting Cache

    Christian Biesinger wrote:
    > twillers wrote:
    >> and increased speed/performance, as reasons for deleting cache at the
    >> end of a session. They must be saying these things for a reason. They
    >> all can't be wrong.

    >
    > I don't understand how cache can make anything _slower_. That would
    > totally miss the point of cache. I'd go as far as saying that's a bug.


    Try entering; "large browser cache file slows down computer", in a
    google search. As an example, the following is an excerpt taken from
    this Microsoft article.
    "http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/community/columns/performance.mspx"

    "Some of the fixes you will see below are not specific to Internet
    Explorer. Experience has taught me that it is always a good idea to take
    a holistic approach when working on browser slow downs."

    "Adjust Internet Explorerís cache size"

    "One of the side effects of todayís mega-large hard drives is that
    Internet Explorer may automatically set its cache limit to a
    ridiculously large size, or the computerís user will choose an extremely
    large cache size because they have the room."

    "I have seen computers with a gigabyte (GB) or more of space dedicated
    to cached Web pages. This is far too much. Any time saved by caching so
    many pages is wiped out by the time it takes Internet Explorer to index
    and then later find and load those pages. Also, the risk of cache
    corruption increases exponentially as the size of the cache increases."

    "I generally recommend a cache size of 50 to 100 megabytes (MB) for the
    average user, with 100 MB being for those with broadband and a newer
    (faster) PC. If you are in the habit of downloading very large files
    then you should consider increasing the size of your cache so that it
    will comfortably fit the size of your largest download plus about 50 MB."


  11. Re: Deleting Cache

    twillers wrote:
    > Christian Biesinger wrote:
    >> twillers wrote:
    >>> and increased speed/performance, as reasons for deleting cache at the
    >>> end of a session. They must be saying these things for a reason. They
    >>> all can't be wrong.

    >>
    >> I don't understand how cache can make anything _slower_. That would
    >> totally miss the point of cache. I'd go as far as saying that's a bug.

    >
    > Try entering; "large browser cache file slows down computer", in a
    > google search. As an example, the following is an excerpt taken from
    > this Microsoft article.
    > "http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/community/columns/performance.mspx"
    >



    MSIE's cache clearly sucks - there are multiple bugs with it (for
    example, sometimes you lose the ability to save images in any format
    except .bmp until you clear the cache). I've never noticed improvements
    with Mozilla after clearing my cache. Plus, MSIE seems to create one
    file on disk for each file cached - your filesystem performance would
    presumably affect cache speed quite a bit. Moz merges small files together.

    Chris

  12. Re: Deleting Cache (0 byte web bugs from 1969!?)

    Rich Gray wrote:
    > Now THAT's a privacy issue. ("X"s added to each URL to invalidate
    > them.) Garbage like this IS a good reason to clear cache on a
    > session basis. Why are things with an expires date in 1969
    > cached? Are there settings/tools to prevent or clear cache of
    > these things??


    (I'm not sure why caching this is a privacy problem...)

    That expiry date is stored as 0 (converted to local timezone)... I
    believe even expired content is stored in the cache for various reasons,
    but when loading the URL again, the server is asked if it has a newer
    version.

    > Another reason to clear caches would be backups. Backing up
    > caches and other temporary files is truly a waste of time and
    > space.


    That's why you should exclude the cache folder from backups... which is
    easier now that it is in Local Settings.

  13. Re: Deleting Cache

    twillers wrote:
    > Try entering; "large browser cache file slows down computer", in a
    > google search. As an example, the following is an excerpt taken from
    > this Microsoft article.
    > "http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/community/columns/performance.mspx"


    I stand by my claim that all that are bugs in the cache, and not
    something that fundamentally has to happen with caches.

  14. Re: Deleting Cache (0 byte web bugs from 1969!?)

    Christian Biesinger wrote:
    > Rich Gray wrote:
    >> Now THAT's a privacy issue. ("X"s added to each URL to invalidate
    >> them.) Garbage like this IS a good reason to clear cache on a
    >> session basis. Why are things with an expires date in 1969
    >> cached? Are there settings/tools to prevent or clear cache of
    >> these things??

    >
    > (I'm not sure why caching this is a privacy problem...)


    I believe they are somehow being used like tracking cookies,
    but now that I think about it, I can't quite work out how
    they are being used. And as you point out, I can't see how
    caching or not might matter. I have no doubt they are being
    used for tracking somehow, given the entity which owns the
    garbage domains:

    Registrant:
    Commission Junction
    530 E Montectio St
    Ste 106
    Santa Barbara, CA 93101
    US

    Domain Name: LDUHTRP.NET

    Administrative Contact:
    Hostmaster, ValueClick hostmaster@valueclick.com
    ValueClick, Inc.
    30699 Russel Ranch Rd
    Suite 250
    Westlake Village, CA 91361
    US
    818-575-4500 fax: 818-575-4501

    Hmmm... The tracking section of their FAQ is interesting.
    http://www.cj.com/solutions/faq.jsp

    Not sure I believe them about 99% of users having cookies
    enabled and they don't mention web bugs.

    I don't have a problem with tracking click-throughs as a
    way of generating ad revenue for sites. My privacy concern
    would be tracking individuals from site to site.

    Guess I need to take this to a privacy oriented group. A
    quick look into alt.privacy.spyware did not turn up anything
    on this subject.

    > That expiry date is stored as 0 (converted to local timezone)... I
    > believe even expired content is stored in the cache for various reasons,
    > but when loading the URL again, the server is asked if it has a newer
    > version.


    Ah, yes, the Unix time(0) epoch. I failed to notice that because
    of the time zone adjustment. What does 0 mean as far as cache
    behavior. Expired or forever?


    Rich
    --
    SeaMonkey - Surfing the net has never been so suite!

  15. Re: Deleting Cache

    Christian Biesinger wrote:
    > twillers wrote:
    >> Try entering; "large browser cache file slows down computer", in a
    >> google search. As an example, the following is an excerpt taken from
    >> this Microsoft article.
    >> "http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/community/columns/performance.mspx"

    >
    > I stand by my claim that all that are bugs in the cache, and not
    > something that fundamentally has to happen with caches.


    As was pointed out to me by Chris Thomas, it's obvious you have a
    working knowledge of the hows and whys of Gecko. I on the other hand, do
    not, nor do I claim to. The reason I started this thread, was to find if
    there was a way to automate the clear cache process. What it turned into
    was, a debate over cache itself, and how to handle it. As far as that
    aspect goes; all I know is, what has worked for me and others I've helped.

    Since I started this thread, I've learned that I am not the first person
    to ask how to automatically get rid of cache. There have been bugs
    posted about this, at least as far back as 1999. (Bugzilla Bug 17403,
    and 11008, among others)

    As far as finding the answer to my question; I solved it by adding,
    (C:\WINDOWS\COMMAND\DELTREE /Y C:\WINDOWS\Application
    Data\Mozilla\Profiles\\******.slt\Cache\*.*) to my
    autoexec.bat. At least this way every time the computer is rebooted, the
    cache is deleted. Maybe someday the bug will be fixed, and make a lot of
    people happy. Until then, this workaround, works for me.

  16. Re: Deleting Cache

    stan wrote:
    > twillers wrote:
    >> Is there a switch that can be added to the SM start-up command line,
    >> that will automatically delete cache, when the browser is started?
    >>
    >> If not, will adding "C:\WINDOWS\COMMAND\DELTREE /Y
    >> C:\WINDOWS\Application Data\Mozilla\Profiles\ >> name>\******.slt\Cache" to my autoexec.bat remove the cache when the
    >> computer is booted?
    >>

    >
    > I use the PrefBar so i can clear the cache when I want to.
    >
    > http://prefbar.mozdev.org/
    >
    > Stan



    It looks good but it takes up another whole slice out of the view pane,
    making the view pane smaller, (On a bigger monitor this wouldn't be an
    issue). Where as multizilla just adds one button to the navigation tool
    bar. With witch you can do any number of things, like clear any
    individual cache or all of them on the fly. Also if you want, every time
    the browser is closed it will do the same.


    Adrian
    .... Something Went Wrong in Jet Crash, Expert Says
    ;-)

  17. Re: Deleting Cache

    twillers wrote:
    > Christian Biesinger wrote:
    >> twillers wrote:
    >>>>> It only removed stuff when it got near the limit, and then only
    >>>>> enough so that new stuff fits in.
    >>>
    >>> According to you, why remove it a all?

    >>
    >> So that new stuff fits in.
    >>
    >>> You are correct, with regards to the cache size being limited to the
    >>> preset limit. My IE is set at 100 meg, and as far as I can remember,
    >>> it's always been that way. I almost never use it. So that being said;
    >>> what would be the reason, or advantage of keeping 100 megs of useless
    >>> cache that dates back months ago, on the computer.

    >>
    >> The point of the cache is to load pages faster that you visited
    >> before. I don't know about you, but in my case there are certain pages
    >> I visit very often, and it's good that they load faster :-)
    >>
    >>> Most of which were cached by others using the computer. The same
    >>> could be said for SM,(50 meg) or any other browser for that matter.
    >>> What I can tell you is; I know where one person does his banking,
    >>> what credit union another one uses, and what he bought from an online
    >>> auto part store, and the list goes on. I'm not sure what I would find
    >>> if I put my mind to it. Just out of curiosity; would this be
    >>> considered a Security or privacy issue?

    >>
    >> Gecko doesn't cache SSL pages to disk, which should cover most of your
    >> use cases. I'd call that privacy issues. But that stuff is also stored
    >> in the history, and if you don't want that others can potentially see
    >> pages you visited, you should clear cache and history, or use
    >> different accounts on the computer (and a filesystem with access
    >> control).
    >>
    >>> The bottom line is; I see only advantages for purging cache on a
    >>> regular basis, and very little to no, disadvantage to doing it.

    >>
    >> Previously visited pages load slower, or not at all (when in offline
    >> mode).

    >
    > Christian, when you start a new session of SM, doesn't it check and load
    > a new page if it's newer then the one stored in cache? And after that it
    > will use the one in cache, for the remainder of the session, assuming
    > you didn't change the default? ("check once per session") Take a person
    > with 20 or 30 megs of stored cache; what percentage of that cache
    > actually gets reused to load a page, verses just taking up space? If you
    > only go to the same pages, and they never update from session to
    > session, the cached files probably get reused all the time. But if you
    > surf the web a lot, or if a lot of different people use the computer,
    > the percentage is going to switch the other way. There are going to be a
    > lot of files that are just taking up space.
    >
    > If what I've said is true; what harm would it do if those people purged
    > the cache at the end of their session? I think the advantages would far
    > out way any disadvantages; whatever the reason for doing it.
    >
    > As far as privacy versus security goes, I think it goes hand in hand.
    > You brought up a good point with regards to history. Your right; you
    > should delete it at the end of a session if you are worried about
    > privacy, or security. At least that we agree on that. :-)
    >


    Your mentioning "History" made me think along the lines of "If its
    possible to automatically expire History after (9) days or whatever, is
    it possible to do the same with cache? i.e. sites that you regularly
    visit (which haven't been renewed) are not removed from case, but sites
    that you haven't visited in the last (9) days are removed.

    Is there such a pref?

    Daniel


  18. Re: Deleting Cache

    Daniel wrote:
    > twillers wrote:
    >> Christian Biesinger wrote:
    >>> twillers wrote:
    >>>>>> It only removed stuff when it got near the limit, and then only
    >>>>>> enough so that new stuff fits in.
    >>>>
    >>>> According to you, why remove it a all?
    >>>
    >>> So that new stuff fits in.
    >>>
    >>>> You are correct, with regards to the cache size being limited to the
    >>>> preset limit. My IE is set at 100 meg, and as far as I can remember,
    >>>> it's always been that way. I almost never use it. So that being
    >>>> said; what would be the reason, or advantage of keeping 100 megs of
    >>>> useless cache that dates back months ago, on the computer.
    >>>
    >>> The point of the cache is to load pages faster that you visited
    >>> before. I don't know about you, but in my case there are certain
    >>> pages I visit very often, and it's good that they load faster :-)
    >>>
    >>>> Most of which were cached by others using the computer. The same
    >>>> could be said for SM,(50 meg) or any other browser for that matter.
    >>>> What I can tell you is; I know where one person does his banking,
    >>>> what credit union another one uses, and what he bought from an
    >>>> online auto part store, and the list goes on. I'm not sure what I
    >>>> would find if I put my mind to it. Just out of curiosity; would this
    >>>> be considered a Security or privacy issue?
    >>>
    >>> Gecko doesn't cache SSL pages to disk, which should cover most of
    >>> your use cases. I'd call that privacy issues. But that stuff is also
    >>> stored in the history, and if you don't want that others can
    >>> potentially see pages you visited, you should clear cache and
    >>> history, or use different accounts on the computer (and a filesystem
    >>> with access control).
    >>>
    >>>> The bottom line is; I see only advantages for purging cache on a
    >>>> regular basis, and very little to no, disadvantage to doing it.
    >>>
    >>> Previously visited pages load slower, or not at all (when in offline
    >>> mode).

    >>
    >> Christian, when you start a new session of SM, doesn't it check and
    >> load a new page if it's newer then the one stored in cache? And after
    >> that it will use the one in cache, for the remainder of the session,
    >> assuming you didn't change the default? ("check once per session")
    >> Take a person with 20 or 30 megs of stored cache; what percentage of
    >> that cache actually gets reused to load a page, verses just taking up
    >> space? If you only go to the same pages, and they never update from
    >> session to session, the cached files probably get reused all the time.
    >> But if you surf the web a lot, or if a lot of different people use the
    >> computer, the percentage is going to switch the other way. There are
    >> going to be a lot of files that are just taking up space.
    >>
    >> If what I've said is true; what harm would it do if those people
    >> purged the cache at the end of their session? I think the advantages
    >> would far out way any disadvantages; whatever the reason for doing it.
    >>
    >> As far as privacy versus security goes, I think it goes hand in hand.
    >> You brought up a good point with regards to history. Your right; you
    >> should delete it at the end of a session if you are worried about
    >> privacy, or security. At least that we agree on that. :-)
    >>

    >
    > Your mentioning "History" made me think along the lines of "If its
    > possible to automatically expire History after (9) days or whatever, is
    > it possible to do the same with cache? i.e. sites that you regularly
    > visit (which haven't been renewed) are not removed from case, but sites
    > that you haven't visited in the last (9) days are removed.
    >
    > Is there such a pref?
    >
    > Daniel
    >


    Daniel, I went to, http://kb.mozillazine.org/category:Preferences, and
    there is no mention of it. But then again, there's nothing mentioned for
    History either.

    Personally, I think that would be a great way of handling the issue.
    That's a way of handling it, that I hadn't thought about.

  19. Re: Deleting Cache

    On 21-02-2006 14:52 CET, twillers composed this enchanting statement:
    > Daniel wrote:
    >> twillers wrote:
    >>> Christian Biesinger wrote:
    >>>> twillers wrote:
    >>>>>>> It only removed stuff when it got near the limit, and then only
    >>>>>>> enough so that new stuff fits in.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> According to you, why remove it a all?
    >>>>
    >>>> So that new stuff fits in.
    >>>>
    >>>>> You are correct, with regards to the cache size being limited to
    >>>>> the preset limit. My IE is set at 100 meg, and as far as I can
    >>>>> remember, it's always been that way. I almost never use it. So
    >>>>> that being said; what would be the reason, or advantage of keeping
    >>>>> 100 megs of useless cache that dates back months ago, on the
    >>>>> computer.
    >>>>
    >>>> The point of the cache is to load pages faster that you visited
    >>>> before. I don't know about you, but in my case there are certain
    >>>> pages I visit very often, and it's good that they load faster :-)
    >>>>
    >>>>> Most of which were cached by others using the computer. The same
    >>>>> could be said for SM,(50 meg) or any other browser for that
    >>>>> matter. What I can tell you is; I know where one person does his
    >>>>> banking, what credit union another one uses, and what he bought
    >>>>> from an online auto part store, and the list goes on. I'm not sure
    >>>>> what I would find if I put my mind to it. Just out of curiosity;
    >>>>> would this be considered a Security or privacy issue?
    >>>>
    >>>> Gecko doesn't cache SSL pages to disk, which should cover most of
    >>>> your use cases. I'd call that privacy issues. But that stuff is
    >>>> also stored in the history, and if you don't want that others can
    >>>> potentially see pages you visited, you should clear cache and
    >>>> history, or use different accounts on the computer (and a
    >>>> filesystem with access control).
    >>>>
    >>>>> The bottom line is; I see only advantages for purging cache on a
    >>>>> regular basis, and very little to no, disadvantage to doing it.
    >>>>
    >>>> Previously visited pages load slower, or not at all (when in
    >>>> offline mode).
    >>>
    >>> Christian, when you start a new session of SM, doesn't it check and
    >>> load a new page if it's newer then the one stored in cache? And
    >>> after that it will use the one in cache, for the remainder of the
    >>> session, assuming you didn't change the default? ("check once per
    >>> session") Take a person with 20 or 30 megs of stored cache; what
    >>> percentage of that cache actually gets reused to load a page, verses
    >>> just taking up space? If you only go to the same pages, and they
    >>> never update from session to session, the cached files probably get
    >>> reused all the time. But if you surf the web a lot, or if a lot of
    >>> different people use the computer, the percentage is going to switch
    >>> the other way. There are going to be a lot of files that are just
    >>> taking up space.
    >>>
    >>> If what I've said is true; what harm would it do if those people
    >>> purged the cache at the end of their session? I think the advantages
    >>> would far out way any disadvantages; whatever the reason for doing it.
    >>>
    >>> As far as privacy versus security goes, I think it goes hand in
    >>> hand. You brought up a good point with regards to history. Your
    >>> right; you should delete it at the end of a session if you are
    >>> worried about privacy, or security. At least that we agree on that. :-)
    >>>

    >>
    >> Your mentioning "History" made me think along the lines of "If its
    >> possible to automatically expire History after (9) days or whatever,
    >> is it possible to do the same with cache? i.e. sites that you
    >> regularly visit (which haven't been renewed) are not removed from
    >> case, but sites that you haven't visited in the last (9) days are
    >> removed.
    >>
    >> Is there such a pref?
    >>
    >> Daniel
    >>

    >
    > Daniel, I went to, http://kb.mozillazine.org/category:Preferences, and
    > there is no mention of it. But then again, there's nothing mentioned
    > for History either.
    >
    > Personally, I think that would be a great way of handling the issue.
    > That's a way of handling it, that I hadn't thought about.

    Why not use preferences> advanced> cache - check radio button 'when page
    is out of date'?

    --
    Kind regards,

    Melchert

    MacOS 10.3.9/Firefox 1.5/Thunderbird 1.5

  20. Re: Deleting Cache

    Melchert Fruitema wrote:
    > On 21-02-2006 14:52 CET, twillers composed this enchanting statement:
    >> Daniel wrote:
    >>> twillers wrote:
    >>>> Christian Biesinger wrote:
    >>>>> twillers wrote:
    >>>>>>>> It only removed stuff when it got near the limit, and then only
    >>>>>>>> enough so that new stuff fits in.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> According to you, why remove it a all?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> So that new stuff fits in.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> You are correct, with regards to the cache size being limited to
    >>>>>> the preset limit. My IE is set at 100 meg, and as far as I can
    >>>>>> remember, it's always been that way. I almost never use it. So
    >>>>>> that being said; what would be the reason, or advantage of keeping
    >>>>>> 100 megs of useless cache that dates back months ago, on the
    >>>>>> computer.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The point of the cache is to load pages faster that you visited
    >>>>> before. I don't know about you, but in my case there are certain
    >>>>> pages I visit very often, and it's good that they load faster :-)
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Most of which were cached by others using the computer. The same
    >>>>>> could be said for SM,(50 meg) or any other browser for that
    >>>>>> matter. What I can tell you is; I know where one person does his
    >>>>>> banking, what credit union another one uses, and what he bought
    >>>>>> from an online auto part store, and the list goes on. I'm not sure
    >>>>>> what I would find if I put my mind to it. Just out of curiosity;
    >>>>>> would this be considered a Security or privacy issue?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Gecko doesn't cache SSL pages to disk, which should cover most of
    >>>>> your use cases. I'd call that privacy issues. But that stuff is
    >>>>> also stored in the history, and if you don't want that others can
    >>>>> potentially see pages you visited, you should clear cache and
    >>>>> history, or use different accounts on the computer (and a
    >>>>> filesystem with access control).
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> The bottom line is; I see only advantages for purging cache on a
    >>>>>> regular basis, and very little to no, disadvantage to doing it.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Previously visited pages load slower, or not at all (when in
    >>>>> offline mode).
    >>>>
    >>>> Christian, when you start a new session of SM, doesn't it check and
    >>>> load a new page if it's newer then the one stored in cache? And
    >>>> after that it will use the one in cache, for the remainder of the
    >>>> session, assuming you didn't change the default? ("check once per
    >>>> session") Take a person with 20 or 30 megs of stored cache; what
    >>>> percentage of that cache actually gets reused to load a page, verses
    >>>> just taking up space? If you only go to the same pages, and they
    >>>> never update from session to session, the cached files probably get
    >>>> reused all the time. But if you surf the web a lot, or if a lot of
    >>>> different people use the computer, the percentage is going to switch
    >>>> the other way. There are going to be a lot of files that are just
    >>>> taking up space.
    >>>>
    >>>> If what I've said is true; what harm would it do if those people
    >>>> purged the cache at the end of their session? I think the advantages
    >>>> would far out way any disadvantages; whatever the reason for doing it.
    >>>>
    >>>> As far as privacy versus security goes, I think it goes hand in
    >>>> hand. You brought up a good point with regards to history. Your
    >>>> right; you should delete it at the end of a session if you are
    >>>> worried about privacy, or security. At least that we agree on that. :-)
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Your mentioning "History" made me think along the lines of "If its
    >>> possible to automatically expire History after (9) days or whatever,
    >>> is it possible to do the same with cache? i.e. sites that you
    >>> regularly visit (which haven't been renewed) are not removed from
    >>> case, but sites that you haven't visited in the last (9) days are
    >>> removed.
    >>>
    >>> Is there such a pref?
    >>>
    >>> Daniel
    >>>

    >>
    >> Daniel, I went to, http://kb.mozillazine.org/category:Preferences, and
    >> there is no mention of it. But then again, there's nothing mentioned
    >> for History either.
    >>
    >> Personally, I think that would be a great way of handling the issue.
    >> That's a way of handling it, that I hadn't thought about.

    > Why not use preferences> advanced> cache - check radio button 'when page
    > is out of date'?
    >


    Do all pages included an "out of date" date?

    Daniel

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast