You are here

Slow Bookmark updates

7 posts / 0 new
Last post
cluesch
Offline
Last seen: 16 years 10 months ago
Joined: 2007-06-14 06:43
Slow Bookmark updates

Hello there,
as it has been noted on https://portableapps.com/node/2118 already, bookmark updates are somewhat... well a dead turtle is slow, but taking 70 seconds to write a 350 kB bookmarks file is not just slow, it is excruciating; never been so close to punch my laptop before.

And everytime you do something in the Bookmark Manager, even if you just try to drag a folder somewhere else (but fail), you will have to wait for over a minute.

Luckily for me, the place where I really want to use PFF doesn't allow write access to USB devices, so no slow writes anymore.

John T. Haller
John T. Haller's picture
Online
Last seen: 19 min 55 sec ago
AdminDeveloperModeratorTranslator
Joined: 2005-11-28 22:21
Drive

That's due to your drive being too slow or USB 1.1. There's nothing you can do about it software wise without modifying Firefox itself (which we can't do). So, be sure you connect to a USB 2.0 port all the time and get yourself a better drive.

Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!

cluesch
Offline
Last seen: 16 years 10 months ago
Joined: 2007-06-14 06:43
BZZZZZZT wrong answer. The

BZZZZZZT wrong answer.

The drive is not overly fast, but copying 10MB worth of Firefox plugins took less than 10 seconds.

Could please keep your condescending guesses to yourself?

John T. Haller
John T. Haller's picture
Online
Last seen: 19 min 55 sec ago
AdminDeveloperModeratorTranslator
Joined: 2005-11-28 22:21
Bzzzt Yourself

The speed at which a drive copies 10MB worth of files all together has almost nothing to do with how quickly it will alternatively read and write small bits of data (incidentally, it probably took more than 10 seconds... watch your activity light). The speed of a drive has to do with the speed of the flash RAM, the way that RAM is configured and the speed of the controller chip. When running portable apps like Firefox, you're alternatively reading and writing tiny bits of information. If a drive has a slower controller chip, it can absolutely tank in terms of speed... even though writing a big swath of files is quick. And the way Firefox deals with its bookmarks.html is *very* inefficient when you're talking about running from a slower medium (like flash RAM).

"USB 2.0 high speed" means nothing. The straight read and write speeds they list in their specs mean nothing.

This is actually one of the reasons not all drives work as ReadyBoost drives with Vista... even those that list high read and write speeds. It's because what matters is reading and writing small bits of data back and forth quickly. Which is the same thing that matters with portable apps.

Anyway, this is all pretty well known. And I generally assume that everyone asking is aware of these things. Basically, if you're using a straight up copy of Firefox Portable without any extra extensions that would affect bookmarks and your bookmarks are running slow... then it really *IS* your drive that's slowing it down. It's not a personal or condescending attack (though you're welcome to take it however you want and get as defensive as you want) it's just what we've all come to know by actual experience with these apps.

Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!

Ryan McCue
Ryan McCue's picture
Offline
Last seen: 14 years 6 months ago
Joined: 2006-01-06 21:27
.

And the way Firefox deals with its bookmarks.html is *very* inefficient when you're talking about running from a slower medium (like flash RAM).
Wasn't that why they were switching to SQLite?
----
Ryan McCue.
Blog.
So all that Airbus-delay trouble over here in Europe is because of YOU!
Simeon.

"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate."

cluesch
Offline
Last seen: 16 years 10 months ago
Joined: 2007-06-14 06:43
And the way Firefox deals

And the way Firefox deals with its bookmarks.html is *very* inefficient when you're talking about running from a slower medium (like flash RAM).

This is exactly why the whole discussion about USB 2.0 or High-speed or controller is kind of pointless. What you are doing is constantly rewriting pages on the flash memory, and regardless of the speed this is not a good idea.

Of course having a faster controller masks this effect, but it is still a bad idea. But then again, most fundamental problems in the PC world seem to be solved by throwing more silicon at it.

So I gather there is no real solution, the only one is to pick a thumb-drive which can write faster, and hope it survives the onslaught of write requests?

John T. Haller
John T. Haller's picture
Online
Last seen: 19 min 55 sec ago
AdminDeveloperModeratorTranslator
Joined: 2005-11-28 22:21
It's not pointless at all

A better drive fixes the issue. The issue is the slow response when updating bookmarks. Getting a good drive absolutely solves this. So, it's a solution... not a mask. It fixes the problem.

The high number of writes and reads won't be changed in the current 2.0 codebase. The 3.0 codebase has a completely rewritten bookmarks storage system that uses a SQL database. It's only in alpha stage and not recommended for production use. And we can't patch Firefox to add/remove features or change stuff for slow media use and continue to call it Firefox. Firefox has to remain completely unaltered. You want changes... this is not the place to ask for em.

So, there is a solution that fixes the issue you're seeing: get a better drive. This is the ONLY solution we can offer you at the present time. It's up to you whether you wish to go that route or just deal with it the way it is on your current drive.

Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!

Log in or register to post comments