Re: Updated disc cache
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 a handful of entries in a directory, such as > > > FileCore :) > > > > It is a shame that there is no simple way to discover if 'big > > directories' are being used with no such limitations, as they have > > been here for many many years. > A bit technical for this list but > http://git.netsurf-browser.org/netsurf.git/tree/content/fs_backing_store.c#n326 > explains ... I did have a look, but clear as mud to me. I have just deleted my cache from Netsurf v3.3 - about 2,500 files ... and about 12,500 directories! That is about 5 directories for each file, and I would hope for at least 50 files in each directory! But I do understand that it is not simple task!
Re: Updated disc cache
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 caching to use fewer small > files. This change is not backwards compatible and will leave the old > cache files behind. > 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. > The upside of this change is that it *may* help with performance for > those of you that were seeing repeated warnings about insufficient > disc bandwidth. > As I have explained previously on several occasions the RISC OS > filesystem performance appears to be very poor when using several > small files, the new system uses a handful of large files as well to > remove this as an issue. > If you have previously disabled the cache please can I ask you to > retry with the newer versions and see if the performance has improved? > 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_exit 294: Exited successfully > The bandwidth line will be about 20 lines from the end of the log and > look like > (2298.804881) content/llcache.c llcache_finalise 3352: Backing store > average bandwidth 128324035 bytes/second ARMini with RO 5.20 (10 June 2013) NS #2697 I went only to the www.buxtonweather.co.uk website. In the log I found these (20.42) content/llcache.c llcache_persist 2494: Overran timeslot (30.88) content/llcache.c llcache_persist_slowcheck 2438: Cannot write minimum bandwidth (59.82) content/llcache.c llcache_finalise 3352: Backing store average bandwidth 33092 bytes/second That last line was many more than 20 lines from the end of the file Regards Andrew -- Andrew Pinder
