In article <55256ea0.8010...@netsurf-browser.org>,
Michael Drake wrote:
> On 08/04/15 12:41, Chris Newman wrote:
> > So given all this, on my RiscPC Strong ARMv4 Adjust 4.39 with Unipod, to
> > what
> > should I set the Cache parameters in NetSurf Choices?
> Too slow to be useful. Set dis
On 3 Apr 2015 as I do recall,
Vincent Sanders wrote:
[snip]
> If you are feeling very adventurous you can report the bandwidth
> achieved. This is a line in the debug Log file held in scrap *after*
> the browser has been quit. The last line of the Log will read
> something like:
>
> (2
On 08/04/15 12:41, Chris Newman wrote:
So given all this, on my RiscPC Strong ARMv4 Adjust 4.39 with Unipod, to what
should I set the Cache parameters in NetSurf Choices?
Too slow to be useful. Set disc cache size to 0.
--
Michael Drake http://www.netsurf-browser.org/
In article <20150408104544.gg18...@kyllikki.org>,
Vincent Sanders wrote:
> Just to summarise the outcome of all the observations on the improved
> disc cache.
> The improvements make the cache viable on many more supported systems,
> including more RISC OS systems.
> On PC with modern OS it m
In article <20150403135750.ge18...@kyllikki.org>,
Vincent Sanders wrote:
>
> > > > I suspect much of the delay for small files is due to checking,
> > > > creating, and traversing directories!
> >
> > > The depth was chosen so it would work on poor-quality file systems
> > > that only allow
In message <20150403111441.gb18...@kyllikki.org>
on 3 Apr 2015 Vincent Sanders wrote:
> I know several RISC OS users regularly use the CI builds and have had
> issues with the disc cache. This is partly a request for assistance
> and partly a warning.
> I have recently changed the disc based ca
In article ,
Andrew Pinder wrote:
> > 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 spe
In message <54af215e1bch...@chris-johnson.org.uk>
on 4 Apr 2015 cj wrote:
> 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
> hy
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
In article <20150403111441.gb18...@kyllikki.org>,
Vincent Sanders wrote:
> If you are feeling very adventurous you can report the bandwidth
> achieved. This is a line in the debug Log file held in scrap *after*
> the browser has been quit. The last line of the Log will read
> something like:
>
In article ,
David Pitt wrote:
> Can't say that I blame it! The ROOL forum content is particularly
> turgid at the moment, no sensible software would see any purpose in
> cacheing that.
>
I am not sure what you mean there. Viewing the forum on an old
(ex-XP) laptop now running a light linux,
On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 03:13:17PM +0100, David Pitt wrote:
> I also think NetSurf's performance is severely hampered by the slow
> processors available to RISC OS.
No, the CPUs are perfectly adequately fast. A Raspberry Pi can do many
megabytes a second when running Linux. RISC OS's IO layer an
I have now tried on the PandaBoard. Used random pages from the Daily
Mail site (not much content if you are not interested in celebrates!).
The first time I tried I fairly quickly ended up with the cache being
disabled - the logged average speed was not much over 100 KB/s.
However, I then reran N
cj, on 3 Apr, 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 http://www.dailymail.co.uk because
> > that is a particularly heavy duty site.
>
> OK. A lot of random browsing around th
> > >
> > > I suspect much of the delay for small files is due to checking,
> > > creating, and traversing directories!
>
> > The depth was chosen so it would work on poor-quality file systems that
> > only allow a handful of entries in a directory, such as FileCore :)
>
> It is a shame that
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 http://www.dailymail.co.uk
> > because that is a particularly heavy duty site.
>
> OK. A l
In article <20150403131050.gq29...@platypus.pepperfish.net>,
Rob Kendrick wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 01:30:14PM +0100, nets...@avisoft.f9.co.uk wrote:
> > In article <54ae82a927ch...@chris-johnson.org.uk>,
> >cj wrote:
> > > I can see why RISC OS gets indigestion with the cache. Have
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 http://www.dailymail.co.uk
> because that is a particularly heavy duty site.
OK. A lot of random browsing around that site led to:
(5743.13) cont
On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 01:30:14PM +0100, nets...@avisoft.f9.co.uk wrote:
> In article <54ae82a927ch...@chris-johnson.org.uk>,
>cj wrote:
> > I can see why RISC OS gets indigestion with the cache. Have just
> > deleted the cache on the Iyonix, and there were over 21,000
> > directories and ove
cj, on 3 Apr, wrote:
> In article <20150403111441.gb18...@kyllikki.org>,
>Vincent Sanders wrote:
> > The bandwidth line will be about 20 lines from the end of the log
>
> I restarted Netsurf with cache enabled on the Iyonix. Loaded up the ROOL
> forum. Message came up almost immediately that
On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 12:48:39PM +0100, Jim Nagel wrote:
> Vincent Sanders wrote on 3 Apr:
> > If you are feeling very adventurous you can report the bandwidth
> > achieved. This is a line in the debug Log file held in scrap *after*
> > the browser has been quit. The last line of the Log will re
Vincent Sanders, on 3 Apr, wrote:
[snip - cache bandwidth]
NetSurf 2696
RPi2 SDFS 6067 bytes/s
RPi2 Fat32FS 15220 bytes/s
Iyonix320252 bytes/s
A9home509265 bytes/s
VRPC W7 SSD 605771 bytes/s
--
David Pitt
Vincent Sanders wrote on 3 Apr:
> If you are feeling very adventurous you can report the bandwidth
> achieved. This is a line in the debug Log file held in scrap *after*
> the browser has been quit. The last line of the Log will read
> something like:
> (2298.806358) desktop/netsurf.c netsurf_exi
In article <20150403111441.gb18...@kyllikki.org>,
Vincent Sanders wrote:
> The bandwidth line will be about 20 lines from the end of the log
I restarted Netsurf with cache enabled on the Iyonix. Loaded up the
ROOL forum. Message came up almost immediately that the cache was
being disabled.
Qu
I can see why RISC OS gets indigestion with the cache. Have just
deleted the cache on the Iyonix, and there were over 21,000
directories and over 19,000 files.
--
Chris Johnson
In article <20150403111441.gb18...@kyllikki.org>,
Vincent Sanders wrote:
> (2298.804881) content/llcache.c llcache_finalise 3352: Backing
> store average bandwidth 128324035 bytes/second
Hells bells - you'll be lucky to a tenth of that speed on RISC OS
hardware and probably less on usb or sdfs
30 matches
Mail list logo
