Netsurf Cache
In article <20160413104528.ga24...@kyllikki.org>, Vincent Sanders wrote: > I will go over how this feature works once again. [Snip] Thanks Vincent for the long and detailed explanation of how Netsurf uses the cache. After over 45 years working with computers I understand that the use of any computer resource is a trade-off with other resources, all of which have to be balanced for optimum performance. I have now delated the whole cache, and reset Netsurf to the default values for disc of 1024MB and 28 days, and memory is set to 50MB. I have also created a new directory called ~Temporary and moved !Cache into it, and ensured it is seen during Boot. The ~Temporary directory can be omitted from any backps, searches etc. Time will tell what the effects of this are! Thanks Martin
Re: Fail to load
In article <15a20671-a8e5-060e-bcfd-c85fb6d76...@netsurf-browser.org>, Michael Drake wrote: > On 23/08/16 09:22, Gerald Dodson wrote: > > Further to my posting just now, Organizer has been affected or is also > > involved. When I try to load it the error message "file does not start > > with orgdata" appears. It has been overwritten by NS. > Sounds like it might be disc corruption. Have you tried DiscKnight? > https://armclub.org.uk/products/discknight/ I tend to agree. The Organizer message means what it says: the file OrgData which it is trying to open (in Choices or within !Organizer) does not have 'OrgData' in the first 7 bytes of the file. Therefore it assumes it is not a valid OrgData file. The file OrgData-bak should contain the file before the last update, or depending on your settings, you may have a valid recent backup in Organizer.Backups. Martin
Re: hijack of NetSurf Wiki
In article <9befc2b655.iyoj...@rickman.argonet.co.uk>, John Rickman Iyonix wrote: > Has the NetSurf Wiki been abandoned? > The link: > http://wiki.netsurf-browser.org/Main_Page > leads to an article "5 Ways to Make Money in Commodities". I suspect not abandoned ... but spammed. A user was created at 14:09 on 24th August, and within an hour they had changed the main page 3 times to what you see now. If you are registered, a bug should be raised, but afraid I am not. Martin
Re: !Cache
In article <55bc5e48e6li...@torrens.org.uk>, Richard Torrens (lists) wrote: > My SSD (250GB nominal) was running out - only about 6BG free. > So I deleted !Cache's Netsurf directory. Now 157GB. > Two questions: > How does !Cache take account of NS choices? Disc cache is set to 1024MB. > What are the disadvantages of using a zip fine for Nwtsurf in !Cache. > This is on ARMX6. I'm aware that the lfau means that each block is quite > large. Not sure how large on a 250GB. There were lots of directories in > !Cache. I have raised this sort of thing before. I think you would find there were lots and lots of *empty* directories. Apparently on other FS such directories cause no problems! I even wrote a program to analyse the cache, and to create deletes for all empty directories. But I suspect it currently has bugs, and I got diverted to other things! I think my directory now (after deleting it all like you have in about April) is now about 168MB - which is under its 1024MB limit. It does seem to be using 6300 directories but only holds 1550 files! Still seems a directory overload to me. Martin
Re: !Cache
In article <20160909125304.gn3...@platypus.pepperfish.net>, Rob Kendrick wrote: > On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 01:37:42PM +0100, Richard Torrens (lists) wrote: > > But I have replaced !Cache.Caches.Default.Netsurf with a zip archive > > called Netsurf. This appeasrs to work fine, currently it's 492K - > > with 75 directories in it. > Replacing the directory with an image filing system using a file format > that is not designed for random access will render the cache totally and > utterly pointless unless you're on 3600 baud internet. Perhaps not even > then. Yes indeed. In addition, as a zip file grows, the updating of it gets noticeably slower and slower, as it has more and more shuffling to do. (or at least SparkFS does). You may find that after deleting your cache, and then using the latest version, the cache is better behaved. I am sure that my 300 empty directories out of 6000+ is better than it used to be. Time will tell. Ha! I have just noticed that the 'latest' RISC OS version is actually rather older than I thought according to About this Program ... 3.5 (6th April 1016) Martin
Netsurf Cache
After an informative thread on how the disc cache is used by Netsurf I wrote: On 13 Apr 2016 in article <55705bbd12nets...@avisoft.f9.co.uk>, Martin Avison wrote: > I have now deleted the whole cache, and reset Netsurf to the default > values for disc of 1024MB and 28 days, and memory is set to 50MB. > Time will tell what the effects of this are! As 14 months have passed, I though I would report back. The current contents of my RISC OS Netsurf v3.6 disc cache is... Total Files 5,204 Size 530,576,177 Expired Files4,773 Size 404,997,322 before 30 May 17 3xExpired Files 3,337 Size 280,195,992 before 07 Mar 17 6xExpired Files 1,692 Size 151,695,867 before 20 Sep 16 Total Directories 19,648 Size 40,245,248 Empty899 There are nearly 900 directories with no files in them - but that is quite a small proportion of the 19,000 directories. And I know from the old thread that these could be deleted without causing any problem. It does still strike me as silly that the number of directories is nearly 4 times the number of files held in them. However, I was surprised by the 90% files that were older than the expiry date - indeed 60% were over 3 times the expiry age, and 30% over 6 times. After more investigation, I could see that there are files right back to April 2016 when the cache was initialised. Are age expired cache files *ever* deleted? If so, when, or are they only deleted if the size limit is exceeded? Have any changes since 3.6 affected this? In an earlier post in that thread I had asked... > When are cached files deleted to meet the configured size & expiry? and the reply was ... On 13 Apr in article <20160413104528.ga24...@kyllikki.org>, Vincent Sanders wrote: > The cache is pruned only when adding a new entry which causes the > overall cache usage to exceed the set level. at that point the least > "valuable" objects are discarded until the size drops below the > desired size. This process is subject to 10% hysteresis to avoid > excessive thrashing. I can understand how this applies to the maximum size, but it does not seem to cover the age expiry. Can expired files be manually deleted without causing problems? I suspect that various cache index files would cause problems as they would not be updated. Thanks Martin
Re: list just quiet, or am I still cut off?
On 11 Nov in article <6c9e4e9956@abbeypress.net>, Jim Nagel wrote: > The last item delivered to me from this list was Dave Higton's, dated > Nov07 at 20:56. I have had 9 since then (excluding yours). One on 7th, rest on 8th. Martin
Netsurf Disc Cache
I know from previous posts that using the Netsurf v3.7 disc cache on my Iyonix running RISC OS is probably not improving performance, depending on how low my internet speed is. I am using it to gain experience in the hope that newer, faster hardware will bring some performance benefits. After running with a Disc cache of 500MB and expiry of 30 days for about 2 years it was holding around 6,000 files using about 580MB. Old unused files are being deleted, so these numbers seem stable and acceptable. But it was using 45,000 directories ... 23,000 of which were empty (or just contained other empty directories) occupying 45MB of disc space. I realise these figures are small on today's large discs, but I am still concerned that there is no 'clean up' process for unused empty directories, so they will just grow and grow. Earlier this month I deleted all empty directories, with no problems. If anyone wants to try my small program which produces file and directory statistics for the disc cache, plus an obey file which if run will delete all empty directories, please email me. Martin
Re: Please try the latest build
On 15 Aug in article <3c705f3f-e461-c7a7-3b70-54d63192a...@netsurf-browser.org>, Michael Drake wrote: > Could people please test build #4403 or later? [Snip] > We have just changed the way that HTTP authentication works, [Snip] > Please try entering the incorrect credentials, the correct > credentials, and canceling the login, All seems to work here (on RISC OS) as expected on both the test site and my own site. > by closing the login window. One minor point is that there is no 'Close' icon on the login window, just a Cancel button. Martin
Re: Java script
On 01 Sep in article , BW Chris France N4 wrote: > I believe that Javascipt may be toggled on/off for use within > RiscOS ... but where? Choices -> Content.
Dragging from URL icon
In article <725eadd858.harr...@bazleyfamily.co.uk>, Harriet Bazley wrote: > I'm on RISC OS 5.27. > Neither dragging the little yellow star nor dragging the URL text is > currently working. Saying 5.27 is no help - early versions had no relevant changes, middle ones had some changes that may or may not have worked, later ones were ok. So please will anyone referring to 5.27 also give the date? ___ netsurf-users mailing list -- netsurf-users@netsurf-browser.org To unsubscribe send an email to netsurf-users-le...@netsurf-browser.org
Re: Website refusal
In article <590250e563m...@johnwoodhouse.plus.com>, wrote: > On trying to access https://padlet.com/ I get " Your browser is > not supported. Some parts of this page may not work. Please upgrade > your browser for a better experience. Upgrade Browser " > I don't often see this message now. (Using v,3.9) I see the message too - with 3.10. Ironically, the 'Upgrade Browser' link it displays is an invalid link! ___ netsurf-users mailing list -- netsurf-users@netsurf-browser.org To unsubscribe send an email to netsurf-users-le...@netsurf-browser.org
Re: Netsurf versions
In article <5abb231a1b...@npost.uk>, Chris Newman wrote: > In article , DB wrote: > > Perhaps the announcement by Michael Drake about a new toolchain > > (https://www.riscosopen.org/forum/forums/1/topics/17766) is the > > explanation. > > Using Frank de Bruijn's latest version of Fetch_NS (2.50 > > 17-03-2023) allows the user to select those versions built with > > the new toolchain by setting "Set Fetch_NS$NewToolchain 1" > > (without the quotes) in the settings file. > The new toolchain version I downloaded has nothing on the icon bar > menu to distiguish it from the other flavour. > Using the link within the above topics link thus > https://ci.netsurf-browser.org/builds/riscos/?C=M;O=D > I see the list of builds but as folk have noticed, the number order > is muddled. The numbers will be muddled, as with any list of files the file names are the sequence, and the number is a minor part of the filename. It seems that the naming convention before the number has changed. There even seem to be two 5433 files - https://ci.netsurf-browser.org/builds/riscos/NetSurf-arm-riscos-gnueabi-gcc-5433.zip https://ci.netsurf-browser.org/builds/riscos/NetSurf-arm-unknown-riscos-gcc-5433.zip I have no idea what the difference is! ___ netsurf-users mailing list -- netsurf-users@netsurf-browser.org To unsubscribe send an email to netsurf-users-le...@netsurf-browser.org
Re: allocator_claim_pages:449
In article <8e67b10b5b.harr...@bazleyfamily.co.uk>, Harriet Bazley wrote: > Since downloading v6511 of Netsurf I keep seeing "Unknown dynamic > area" errors pop up in my Reporter window. These are 'silent' > errors that don't generate a WIMP error box, so presumably the user > is not supposed to be aware of them, but it gives the impression > that the app is running out of memory > Reporter 2.72 (15 Aug 2020) List Fri 1st Dec 2023 01:11 > 01:06:46.54 ** Clear ** from Menu > allocator_claim_pages:449 - Unknown dynamic area > allocator_claim_pages:449 - Unknown dynamic area > allocator_claim_pages:449 - Unknown dynamic area > allocator_claim_pages:449 - Unknown dynamic area > allocator_claim_pages:449 - Unknown dynamic area > allocator_claim_pages:449 - Unknown dynamic area > allocator_claim_pages:449 - Unknown dynamic area > allocator_claim_pages:449 - Unknown dynamic area > allocator_claim_pages:449 - Unknown dynamic area > Reporter 2.72 (15 Aug 2020) Listed 10 lines They do not look like messages caused by a RISC OS error being raised, but more like messages produced by a specific Reporter call within the program. Martin ___ netsurf-users mailing list -- netsurf-users@netsurf-browser.org To unsubscribe send an email to netsurf-users-le...@netsurf-browser.org
