Hi L.D., thanks for looking at this. Would be interesting to see if the English pages have the same effect like the German. On Sun, 25 Mar 2001 15:46:38 -0500, L.D. Best wrote: > Joerg, > I think all of us have seen sites which are "memory eaters" ... > About.com used to be really bad, IIRC. :< > This site, however, shows some very interesting patterns with page > loads/reloads ... Michael? > The first time I got to the site I had 142 mem available; next page > dropped it down to 141; next page to 136 or so ... I pulled the ol' > clear-the-memory stunt of shelling out to DOS [ALT-E] and returning. > When I returned I was back to 142 available memory. Right. Reloading Arachne will release the memory. > Then I did something that showed results I've never seen before on a > memory-eater site: If I went back to the pages I'd already d/l'd there > was no decrease in memory available. Going back, going forward, if the > page was already in cache it had no effect on available memory. And it's really the very first time that a page will eat up the xSwap mem. > However, when I started downloading new pages once more, I got a > dramatic drop in memory available == from 142 to 111 in one big bite. > But after that the next half-dozen pages downloaded caused no further > decrease in available memory. > So, that's why I've cc'd this to bugs. I don't know what's going on > with the site, the page design, or Arachne. But this is the first time > I've noticed that cached pages have a different effect on available > memory than newly downloaded pages do. This may be the "lab site" that > will allow the xChaos folx to figure out where/why/how-to-fix the memory > eater problem. > l.d. > ==== -- Arachne V1.70, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/
