On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 09:01:30PM +0200, Martin Pelikan wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 01:42:57PM -0500, Chris Bennett wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 07:54:33PM +0200, Matthias Kilian wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 11:06:56AM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote: > > > > > > My current best theory is that the brand new link prefetch stuff > > > > > > (ugh!) > > > > > > is easting gobs of file descriptors while another site is loading. > > > > > > So > > > > > > when webkit tries to establish a connection to get like favicon or > > > > > > css > > > > > > it runs out and renders the pages sans css or favicon (missing > > > > > > pictures > > > > > > etc etc). The link prefetch can't be disabled since it doesn't > > > > > > have a > > > > > > knob. I am trying to reason with the webkit people (again) that > > > > > > anything prefetch is not really that great for everybody. > > > > > > > > > > Well, if there a way we could introduce such a knob in the port then? > > > BTW: I'm against a knob, too. If we patch it locally (in the port), > > > I'm for disabling all the prefetching stuff unconditionally, because > > > it's just plain stupid. If upstream accepts a knob (because they > > > obviously think that prefetching is clever), that's another story. > > I agree, just get rid of it. > > If upstream is so big on having this prefetching crap, I doubt they will > > want even a knob. > > Just patch it locally unless a knob is really easy. > > Prefetching stuff is a brilliant idea on a sane internet connection. But > people probably want to use their browser in a bush on GPRS 56k modem > and share the line with others, too. Also, at least in our country, > there are lots of stupid greedy ISPs who bill you based on how much > traffic do you transfer. Why should either group of people be limited > in favor of the other? >
Prefetching is a waste of bandwith no matter what. It just adds more load onto the servers. -- :wq Claudio
