In article <54af215e1bch...@chris-johnson.org.uk>,
cj wrote:
> > NetSurf CI #2680 ARMX6
> So nothing much to write home about there, considering some of the
> hype surrounding the disc speed of the ARMX6.
I'm not sure how much the download speed affects the results; I had
several "timeouts"
In article <54aec5195fstuartli...@orpheusinternet.co.uk>,
lists wrote:
> Average bandwidth 355822 bytes/second
> NetSurf CI #2680 ARMX6
So nothing much to write home about there, considering some of the
hype surrounding the disc speed of the ARMX6.
--
Chris Johnson
In message <20150403135237.gd18...@kyllikki.org>
Vincent Sanders wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 02:39:05PM +0100, cj wrote:
>> In article ,
>>David Pitt wrote:
>> > Hmm! My Iyonix did over three time better than that, and there was
>> > no "too slow" message. My test piece was ht
In article <20150403111441.gb18...@kyllikki.org>,
Vincent Sanders wrote:
[Snip]
> If you are feeling very adventurous you can report the bandwidth
> achieved.
[Snip]
(152.54) content/llcache.c llcache_finalise 3352: Backing store
average bandwidth 561256 bytes/second
--
__
[snip]
> I would suggest that any of you using the disc cache to delete it
> before running a NetSurf CI version after #2696 NetSurf will continue
> to run just fine if you do not but all the old cache files will be
> left behind and never cleaned up.
Is there a ',' or an '.' missing somewhere? T
