cj, on 3 Apr, wrote: > In article <mpro.nm8dx001qojsl00l7.pit...@pittdj.co.uk>, > David Pitt <pit...@pittdj.co.uk> wrote: > > Hmm! My Iyonix did over three time better than that, and there was no > > "too slow" message. My test piece was http://www.dailymail.co.uk because > > that is a particularly heavy duty site. > > OK. A lot of random browsing around that site led to: > > (5743.130000) content/llcache.c llcache_finalise 3352: Backing store > average bandwidth 531777 bytes/second > > which is over 5 times faster. However, I thought we would be talking drive > speed, which shouldn't be affected by the download speed of any particular > site, or am I completely up the wrong alley?
I have just a bit of a take two on the Daily Mail site, a longer session, and this time got an average bandwidth of 447397bytes/second on the Iyonix. I too would think that cacheing would mainly be about disc speed but I also think NetSurf's performance is severely hampered by the slow processors available to RISC OS. -- David Pitt
