On Tuesday 06 May 2008 15:50, Robert Hailey wrote: > > On May 5, 2008, at 5:49 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > [...] > > - Freenet is slooooooooow, especially in this case where it had an > > untweaked > > browser. After a long delay, two sites loaded, after a longer delay, > > several > > sites loaded at once; this strongly suggests imho that the problem > > is caused > > by not finding the browser. User reports significant improvement in > > speed > > after a few minutes. > > - Connection limit is definitely a problem: many images which should > > be in the > > same container not loading; same for the Potentially Dangerous Content > > warning. > > Surely the browser isn't the one which understands freenet containers. > Are we coalescing requests for the same container internally?
Not at the client level. There is room for further improvement here. But we do do some coalescing: we won't have multiple local requests in flight for the same key, for example. Most of the above issues were caused by the browser not being found, this has been fixed in 90% of cases by the changes I made to browse.cmd. However the fact remains that a newbie node is still rather disappointingly slow, even with a tweaked browser. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080506/2b1d9462/attachment.pgp>
