Is it "dangerous" to delete cache entries in firefox?

[Bengt T]

My PC containts many entries in folder ...../.cache/mozilla/firefox/xxxxxxxx.default/cache2/entries/ which are time consuming to copy when making backups etc.

My assumption is that the files are used only for speeding up returns to recently visited web pages and can be delete without any loss of important data. Is this correct?

[Marco Moock]

Am Sun, 3 Oct 2021 00:59:04 -0700 (PDT)
schrieb Bengt T <bengt_t...@hotmail.com>:

You can just disable the cache in the settings, then they shouldn't be created.

[Aragorn]

On 03.10.2021 at 10:08, Marco Moock scribbled:

Better still, tell your backup software — whatever that may be; I
didn't see the original post — to exclude ~/.cache.


--
With respect,
= Aragorn =

[Andrei Z.]

Bengt T wrote:
> My PC containts many entries in folder ...../.cache/mozilla/firefox/xxxxxxxx.default/cache2/entries/ which are time consuming to copy when making backups etc.
>
> My assumption is that the files are used only for speeding up returns to recently visited web pages and can be delete without any loss of important data. Is this correct?
>

I'm happy with
browser.cache.disk.enable = false
in Firefox and Thunderbird

[Richard Kettlewell]

Bengt T <bengt_t...@hotmail.com> writes:
> My PC containts many entries in folder
> ...../.cache/mozilla/firefox/xxxxxxxx.default/cache2/entries/ which
> are time consuming to copy when making backups etc.

I exclude caches from my backups.

> My assumption is that the files are used only for speeding up returns
> to recently visited web pages and can be delete without any loss of
> important data. Is this correct?

Yes.

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[Paul]

On 10/3/2021 3:59 AM, Bengt T wrote:
> My PC containts many entries in folder ...../.cache/mozilla/firefox/xxxxxxxx.default/cache2/entries/ which are time consuming to copy when making backups etc.
>
> My assumption is that the files are used only for speeding up returns to recently visited web pages and can be delete without any loss of important data. Is this correct?
>

Excessive cache content, makes the startup of the browser slower.

You can move the cache to RAM. Using about:config settings.
Enter the search term "cache" to see them all.

In addition, there is:

about:cache

but the whole thing is badly behaved, and you'll have to
check several times that everything is the way you want it.

When you enter a numeric value for a field,
don't forget to hit <return>. That's why one of my attempts
to set the RAM cache size, failed to be recorded for later.

This shows my adjusted settings.

https://i.postimg.cc/TwGmmVbJ/cache-settings-using-about-config.gif

By having no disk files, as in that example, the program
startup no longer has to check all the files are there.
As there are no files when it starts up. The RAM cache is
dumped at program exit.

You can dial the RAM cache size, according to your usage pattern.
There's always someone in the audience with 100 tabs open.

Paul

[Andrei Z.]

Bug 1027944 - When disk cache is disabled, hide "disk" cache section in
about:cache (otherwise it repeats "memory" entries for "disk" category)

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1027944

[R.Wieser]

Bengt,

> My assumption is that the files are used only for speeding up returns
> to recently visited web pages and can be delete without any loss of
> important data. Is this correct?

Richard is the only one who actually answered your question.

Yes, you can delete the contents of that "cache2" folder (everything in it,
folders and files - and afaik even the folder itself. All of it will be
recreated the next time you start the browser). The webbrowser is the
only one that uses it, and it doesn't store any kind of important data in
there.

Others have suggested to disable the browsers caching mechanism, but that
could easily affect your browsing experience (speed wise) in a negative way
(and, if you pay by the megabyte, your wallet too). IOW, the solution
might be worse than the problem it solves.

Though the best suggestion came from Aragorn : tell your backup program to
exclude the folders you do not want to have backupped.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[Bengt T]

Thank you all for answers and information. I am considering to delete the cache content at reboot and exclude it from backups as well.

/Bengt T

[Ant]

Aragorn <thor...@telenet.be> wrote:
> On 03.10.2021 at 10:08, Marco Moock scribbled:

> > Am Sun, 3 Oct 2021 00:59:04 -0700 (PDT)
> > schrieb Bengt T <bengt_t...@hotmail.com>:
> >
> > > My PC containts many entries in folder
> > > ...../.cache/mozilla/firefox/xxxxxxxx.default/cache2/entries/ which
> > > are time consuming to copy when making backups etc.
> > >
> > > My assumption is that the files are used only for speeding up
> > > returns to recently visited web pages and can be delete without any
> > > loss of important data. Is this correct?
> >
> > You can just disable the cache in the settings, then they shouldn't
> > be created.

> Better still, tell your backup software ??? whatever that may be; I
> didn't see the original post ??? to exclude ~/.cache.

Or just clear the caches in your web browsers before doing a back up.
--
Hot Oct. So many leaks (liquid & digital types), sneezes, itches, pains, videos, issues, software updates, games, etc. Also, BUSY & tired! :(
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

[bad sector]

This bug thing is over my head

The caching becomes a real PITA when I'm testing web pages
on my local apache. I edit something but then I have to go into
prefs and clear all or I don't see the edited page. Is the above
bug just an indication issue and the interdiction still works
as it should?

[Andrei Z.]

Here

browser.cache.disk.enable = false
browser.cache.memory.capacity = -1
browser.cache.memory.enable = true

about:cache tab after Firefox start (only empty start page)

Information about the Network Cache Storage Service memory

Number of entries: 5
Maximum storage size: 32768 KiB
Storage in use: 196 KiB
Storage disk location: none, only stored in memory
List Cache Entries

disk
Number of entries: 5
Maximum storage size: 32768 KiB
Storage in use: 196 KiB
Storage disk location: none, only stored in memory
List Cache Entries

Bug: "When disk cache is disabled, hide "disk" cache section"
I think this bug is only about an indication on about:cache tab.

[Carlos E. R.]

No, there is something else that is wrong in your procedure, not Firefox
caching content.

Somehow FF should detect that your page has changed and reload instead
of using the cache. I don't know how exactly this works, but normally
hitting the reload icon is enough. And if that doesn't work, press
[shift] before clicking reload, meaning forced reload. They shortcut is
ctrl-r, maybe forced reload is ctrl-R.


--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[R.Wieser]

bad sector,

> I edit something but then I have to go into prefs and
> clear all or I don't see the edited page.

Well duh.

Your browser asks the webserver for each of the resources (webpage, images,
etc) if they have changed, and if it doesn't get a "Yup" answer it uses the
cached version (if no such mechanism is supplied by the webbrowser the
browser considerss the resource to be "current" for a few weeks, after which
it refreshes it anyway)

IOW, you either have to tell your webserver to mark all the resources as
"must reload" (several ways to do that by the way), or you do as Carlos
mentioned, and tell the browser to force-reload.

> Is the above bug just an indication issue and the interdiction
> still works as it should?

As far as I can tell from that link its just an information display problem,
and doesn't interfere with anything.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[Dustin the dude with the stuck floppy]

This is something you know nothing about. Why does Jeff 'The Fool' Relf
focus on Wolffan's self-esteem issues so much?

Did Jeff 'The Fool' Relf think that was clever?

Jeff 'The Fool' Relf wants to punish us: If he and his shills can't
play here then his flooding crap will. Jeff 'The Fool' Relf loves that
Wolffan is on the other end. Imagine if Jeff 'The Fool' Relf walked up
to a wall and delivered the punch line. It wouldn't be worth it.

-
My Snoring Solution!
https://www.bing.com/search?q=Dustin+Cook%3A+functional+illiterate+fraud
https://www.google.com/search?q=dustin+cook+the+functionally+illiterate+fraud
<https://www.spokeo.com/Dustin-Cook/Tennessee/Kingsport/p40064865906>
Dustin Cook is a functional illiterate fraud

[J.O. Aho]

On 04/10/2021 06.08, bad sector wrote:

> The caching becomes a real PITA when I'm testing web pages
> on my local apache. I edit something but then I have to go into
> prefs and clear all or I don't see the edited page. Is the above
> bug just an indication issue and the interdiction still works
> as it should?

just a wild guess, you edit some javascript file and then it keeps on
using the cached version, this ain't a bug, it's just how javascript
should be treated by standard.

A workaround is to add a ?something to the link to the javascript,
each time you update the script, you update the link, this will make the
browser to load the javascript each time the link to it has changed.

--

//Aho

[bad sector]

I'll try Carlos' reload button to begin with, I thought it had
been deprecated but now see that only the icon has changed :-)
There _are_ perl scripts as well as JS involved at times.





>
> --
>
> //Aho

[Richard Kettlewell]

"J.O. Aho" <us...@example.net> writes:
> On 04/10/2021 06.08, bad sector wrote:
>> The caching becomes a real PITA when I'm testing web pages
>> on my local apache. I edit something but then I have to go into
>> prefs and clear all or I don't see the edited page. Is the above
>> bug just an indication issue and the interdiction still works
>> as it should?
>
> just a wild guess, you edit some javascript file and then it keeps on
> using the cached version, this ain't a bug, it's just how javascript
> should be treated by standard.

Browsers vary in how you actually trigger a reload (i.e. issue a new
HTTP request even for cachable resources). Empirically, Firefox just
needs ctrl-R or F5; Chrome needs ctrl-shift-R.

There is generally no need to manually clear caches as suggested above.

You do need to trigger a reload somehow; just editing *.js on the web
server and expecting the browser to reload without any user interaction
will not work.

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[J.O. Aho]

On 05/10/2021 09.37, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> "J.O. Aho" <us...@example.net> writes:
>> On 04/10/2021 06.08, bad sector wrote:
>>> The caching becomes a real PITA when I'm testing web pages
>>> on my local apache. I edit something but then I have to go into
>>> prefs and clear all or I don't see the edited page. Is the above
>>> bug just an indication issue and the interdiction still works
>>> as it should?
>>
>> just a wild guess, you edit some javascript file and then it keeps on
>> using the cached version, this ain't a bug, it's just how javascript
>> should be treated by standard.
>
> Browsers vary in how you actually trigger a reload (i.e. issue a new
> HTTP request even for cachable resources). Empirically, Firefox just
> needs ctrl-R or F5; Chrome needs ctrl-shift-R.

As we have this thread shows that there are people who don't know basic
features in there browses.

> There is generally no need to manually clear caches as suggested above.
>
> You do need to trigger a reload somehow; just editing *.js on the web
> server and expecting the browser to reload without any user interaction
> will not work.

Those giving a bogus request variable are sometimes used to avoid the
problem and lessen the support requests from people who don't know how
to refetch all the content.

--

//Aho

[Dustin who does stuff with miceless computers]

So Wolffan changed his story to Michael Snit Glasser "mentioning" him.

At one point, Wolffan said a legitimate denizen was "obsessing" over him,
which was shown to be merely responding to any name he uses. He would have
to have a form of insanity to be unsure of if he "once had" developed Windows.
Sound like anyone in here? When a guy can not keep his lies straight and
utilizes fake, self-esteem protecting codswallop later, it's extremely apparent
what his game is.

It was Wolffan who flooded Michael Snit Glasser's site thousands of times
and pretended he did not do it.

--
"You'll notice how quickly he loses interest when everything is about him.
He clearly wants the attention"
Steven Petruzzellis, making the dumbest comment ever uttered.

[Stephen - fretwizzer]

https://secure.tennesseetrustee.org/index.php?main=Y

Select Sullivan County
Select Pay/Search Property Taxes
Enter 108 Warrior Drive
On second line click View

Why does Dustin Cook's family owe $4,742.45 in property taxes on a home
worth only $115,500

Rodney Wood has been a bad boy it seems!