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
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 made no great improvement as their OS could
already cope with the directory layout and h
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
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 over 19,000 files.
Yes, there seem to be lots of directories - many empty. The non-emp
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
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 caching to use fewer small
files. This change is not backwards compatible and will leave the old
ca
33 matches
Mail list logo
