Re: Speed of loading NetSurf
On Fri 29/05/09 00:12 , Rob Kendrick r...@netsurf-browser.org wrote: On Thu, 28 May 2009 19:44:31 +0100 Steve Fryatt wrote: Maybe font canning could be filtered? And also, once the fonts have been canned where is the data cached? Is it wasting space somewhere y retaining font data for fonts that will probably never be used? It's stored in !Scrap (in a file called RUfl_cache). On this machine, with a few fonts installed, it takes up 277K. I think that's a reasonable price to pay for improved text display. And is another reason why people shouldn't keep !Scrap in a RAM disc, But isn't the whole idea of !Scrap, that all the files stored inside it are temporary files? Therefore storing !Scrap in a RAMDisc would appear logical. Regards -- Paul Stewart - Far Bletchley, Milton Keynes, UK. Be Bold. Dare To Be Different. Use RISC OS (http://www.riscos.com). It's blue and from outta town - The A9home (http://www.advantage6.co.uk/A9hsplash.html). A9home Compatibility page - (http://www.phawfaux.co.uk/a9home/compatibility.asp).
Re: Speed of loading NetSurf
Paul Stewart wrote: But isn't the whole idea of !Scrap, that all the files stored inside it are temporary files? Therefore storing !Scrap in a RAMDisc would appear logical. That's as maybe, but putting !Scrap in a RAM disc is an archaic practice dating back to the use of RISC OS 2 and floppy discs, where to transfer data between applications, you would have to reinsert the system disc containing !Scrap. These days it's not beneficial and bad practice for at least 4 reasons:- 1) Applications mainly use RAM transfer for exchanging data between each other, so already work faster than disc, and faster than a RAM disc. 2) Some applications such as Photodesk may need to store 100MB or more of data when processing large images. 3) The RAM disc on the Iyonix actually has a lower peak transfer rate than the ATA 100 disc! 4) Some applications store transient data in !Scrap, which can be regenerated, but takes additional time at startup, e.g. NetSurf Cheers ---David -- Email: dr...@druck.org.uk Phone: +44-(0)7974 108301
Re: Speed of loading NetSurf
On 28 May 2009, Tony Moore old_coas...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: [snip] [I] didn't file a bug report. Perhaps I should do so now? Done https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailaid=2798361group_id=51719atid=464312 Tony
Re: Speed of loading NetSurf
On 29 May, Paul Stewart wrote in message 54662.1243577...@phawfaux.co.uk: On Fri 29/05/09 00:12 , Rob Kendrick r...@netsurf-browser.org wrote: And is another reason why people shouldn't keep !Scrap in a RAM disc, But isn't the whole idea of !Scrap, that all the files stored inside it are temporary files? There's temporary, and temporary. Also, until someone (Adam Richardson, IIRC) came up with Cache, RISC OS didn't have defined somewhere to store non-transient internal data that isn't choices. As such, Scrap seems to be the best compromise. Therefore storing !Scrap in a RAMDisc would appear logical. Not really. Not least because it isn't inconceivable that something could try and store a lot of data in Scrap, use up all the available free RAM, and crash (or at least fail -- but I wonder how many RISC OS apps really /do/ check WimpScrap transfers for disc full errors?). -- Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England http://www.stevefryatt.org.uk/
Re: Speed of loading NetSurf
On Fri, 29 May 2009 18:29:03 +0100 Steve Fryatt li...@stevefryatt.org.uk wrote: There's temporary, and temporary. Also, until someone (Adam Richardson, IIRC) came up with Cache, RISC OS didn't have defined somewhere to store non-transient internal data that isn't choices. As such, Scrap seems to be the best compromise. Actually, that was my idea, and Adam has taken forward, and developed upon. :) Search the developer's list's archives back to almost 3 years ago; 12 June 2006, in a thread called RUfl_cache. I don't think the idea got enough momentum to really take off; the suggestion being that not enough people sabotage their own system by putting !Scrap into a RAM disc for it to be worth it. B.
Speed of loading NetSurf
Loading/Running NetSurf (on an Iyonix at least) seems to take 30 seconds whereas running Oregano2 takes less that 3 seconds. [I am not including the time that NetSurf, when first run, uses looking at all the fonts]. Whilst I appreciate that the 10 times greater length of time spent running NetSurf may allow Netsurf to perform (when already running) much faster than Oregano2, is there any way of speeding up the loading/running of NetSurf? Both weigh in at about 5MB total of code. [Running NetSurf 2.1 (but any other version takes about the same length of time).] -- Cheers Roger If you don't know where you're going, you'll end up somewhere else.
Re: Speed of loading NetSurf
In message 28366c6250.roger...@rogerarm.freeuk.com you wrote: Loading/Running NetSurf (on an Iyonix at least) seems to take 30 seconds whereas running Oregano2 takes less that 3 seconds. [I am not including the time that NetSurf, when first run, uses looking at all the fonts]. That is odd. For me (NetSurf r7590, Iyonix RO 5.14) from clicking on !NetSurf's icon to the appearance of its iconbar icon takes under a second. Or were you referring to the time it takes to download a particular webpage? I find that that depends upon the vagaries of the internet - time for domain-name lookup, etc - and the size of the page. -- Gavin Wraith (ga...@wra1th.plus.com) Home page: http://www.wra1th.plus.com/
Re: Speed of loading NetSurf
In article 52ef6d6250.wra...@wra1th.plus.com, Gavin Wraith ga...@wra1th.plus.com wrote: In message 28366c6250.roger...@rogerarm.freeuk.com you wrote: Loading/Running NetSurf (on an Iyonix at least) seems to take 30 seconds whereas running Oregano2 takes less that 3 seconds. [I am not including the time that NetSurf, when first run, uses looking at all the fonts]. That is odd. For me (NetSurf r7590, Iyonix RO 5.14) from clicking on !NetSurf's icon to the appearance of its iconbar icon takes under a second. Only six or seven seconds here on a strongarm RPC, NetSurf 2.1, RISC OS 4.02 -- Russell Hafter - Mailing Lists rh.li...@phone.coop Need a hotel? http://www.hrs.de/?client=en__MTcustomerId=416873103 (NB This link needs Firefox to work)
Re: Speed of loading NetSurf
In message 28366c6250.roger...@rogerarm.freeuk.com Roger wrote: Loading/Running NetSurf (on an Iyonix at least) seems to take 30 seconds whereas running Oregano2 takes less that 3 seconds. [I am not including the time that NetSurf, when first run, uses looking at all the fonts]. [snip] Actually, I would like to suggest that the time taken for font scanning is now an issue since NS 2.1. It now takes several minutes to scan fonts on my home machine. Yes, I know its only on the first time NS is run, but I can't help thinking that this is all wasted time. After all, NS isn't going use all these fonts. Its only likely to need the standard set of ROM fonts. Maybe font scanning could be filtered? And also, once the fonts have been scanned where is the data cached? Is it wasting space somewhere by retaining font data for fonts that will probably never be used? Regarding non-font-related load time I don't seem to have a problem on Virtual RPC. Its certainly not taking 30 seconds. Mike
Re: Speed of loading NetSurf
On 28 May 2009, Michael Drake wrote: In article 28366c6250.roger...@rogerarm.freeuk.com, Roger Darlington roger...@freeuk.com wrote: Loading/Running NetSurf (on an Iyonix at least) seems to take 30 seconds whereas running Oregano2 takes less that 3 seconds. This can happen if you have a vast global history or collection of cookies. If you go to global history window and the cookie window and manager and delete unwanted stuff, does it get faster? Global history: [iconbar menu] Open Show global history Cookie manager: [iconbar menu] Open Show cookies Second response: Could it be the size of my NetSurf Memory cache, which is set at 6.4MB? -- Cheers Roger My friends think I'm surreal, but I've never been near a sword
Re: Speed of loading NetSurf
In article 0a92786250.roger...@rogerarm.freeuk.com, Roger Darlington roger...@freeuk.com wrote: Second response: Could it be the size of my NetSurf Memory cache, which is set at 6.4MB? That shouldn't matter. Please could you zip up and e-mail me the contents of your Choices directory for NetSurf. You can find it by double clicking OpenChoices in NetSurf's application directory. Michael -- Michael Drake (tlsa) http://www.netsurf-browser.org/
Re: Speed of loading NetSurf
On 28 May 2009, Michael Drake wrote: In article 0a92786250.roger...@rogerarm.freeuk.com, Roger Darlington roger...@freeuk.com wrote: Second response: Could it be the size of my NetSurf Memory cache, which is set at 6.4MB? That shouldn't matter. Please could you zip up and e-mail me the contents of your Choices directory for NetSurf. You can find it by double clicking OpenChoices in NetSurf's application directory. OK, have sent that privately Michael. This also prompted me to look in ScrapDirs.WWW.NetSurf.Cache. This contains a whopping 202MB in 5866 files. -- Cheers Roger Oh no! I've only just managed to get it all in of kilter.
Re: Speed of loading NetSurf
In article 55618f6250.roger...@rogerarm.freeuk.com, Roger Darlington roger...@freeuk.com wrote: OK, have sent that privately Michael. Thanks. This also prompted me to look in ScrapDirs.WWW.NetSurf.Cache. This contains a whopping 202MB in 5866 files. The reason for the slow load and big cache is you have NetSurf set to remember a year of browsing history. In NetSurf's choices choose Security, and lower the value for Duration in Site history. The default it 28 days. I'm not sure why we put that option in the Security section. Michael -- Michael Drake (tlsa) http://www.netsurf-browser.org/
Re: Speed of loading NetSurf
On 28 May 2009, Michael Drake t...@netsurf-browser.org wrote: In article 55618f6250.roger...@rogerarm.freeuk.com, Roger Darlington roger...@freeuk.com wrote: [snip] This also prompted me to look in ScrapDirs.WWW.NetSurf.Cache. This contains a whopping 202MB in 5866 files. The reason for the slow load and big cache is you have NetSurf set to remember a year of browsing history. In NetSurf's choices choose Security, and lower the value for Duration in Site history. The default it 28 days. In my copy of NetSurf, Site history is set to 1 day, but Global history still has entries for Yesterday, Tuesday, Monday, Last week, 2 weeks ago and 3 weeks ago. It seems that expiry doesn't work correctly. I filed a bug report on 3 October 2007: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detailaid=1806826group_id=51719atid=464312 The Cache contains thumbnail images, which should be displayed in the expanded entries in Global history. However, the association, between url and thumbnail, appears to be lost when NetSurf is quit so that, apart from those relating to the current session, the thumbnails - and cache - are superfluous. I described this problem, on 3 Dec 2008, in message 03ccf80750.old_coas...@old_coaster.yahoo.co.uk but, in the absence of any response, didn't file a bug report. Perhaps I should do so now? Tony
Re: Speed of loading NetSurf
On 28 May 2009, Michael Drake wrote: In article 55618f6250.roger...@rogerarm.freeuk.com, Roger Darlington roger...@freeuk.com wrote: OK, have sent that privately Michael. Thanks. This also prompted me to look in ScrapDirs.WWW.NetSurf.Cache. This contains a whopping 202MB in 5866 files.. The reason for the slow load and big cache is you have NetSurf set to remember a year of browsing history. In NetSurf's choices choose Security, and lower the value for Duration in Site history. The default it 28 days. I'm not sure why we put that option in the Security section. OK, thanks Michael. with the scrapfile cache deleted, and it set to 28 days, it loads in a matter of 2 seconds :-)) -- Cheers Roger Do you Yahoo? Not if I can help it, but I do yell the occasional 'Yabbadabba Doo'
Re: Speed of loading NetSurf
In article 715a976250.old_coas...@old_coaster.yahoo.co.uk, Tony Moore old_coas...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: On 28 May 2009, Michael Drake t...@netsurf-browser.org wrote: In article 55618f6250.roger...@rogerarm.freeuk.com, Roger Darlington roger...@freeuk.com wrote: [snip] This also prompted me to look in ScrapDirs.WWW.NetSurf.Cache. This contains a whopping 202MB in 5866 files. The reason for the slow load and big cache is you have NetSurf set to remember a year of browsing history. In NetSurf's choices choose Security, and lower the value for Duration in Site history. The default it 28 days. In my copy of NetSurf, Site history is set to 1 day, but Global history still has entries for Yesterday, Tuesday, Monday, Last week, 2 weeks ago and 3 weeks ago. If I understand it right, the site history setting controls how long things like thumbnails are kept in the cache. I think the global history is fixed at 28 days. Michael -- Michael Drake (tlsa) http://www.netsurf-browser.org/
Re: Speed of loading NetSurf
On 28 May 2009, Michael Drake t...@netsurf-browser.org wrote: In article 715a976250.old_coas...@old_coaster.yahoo.co.uk, Tony Moore old_coas...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: On 28 May 2009, Michael Drake t...@netsurf-browser.org wrote: In article 55618f6250.roger...@rogerarm.freeuk.com, Roger Darlington roger...@freeuk.com wrote: [snip] This also prompted me to look in ScrapDirs.WWW.NetSurf.Cache. This contains a whopping 202MB in 5866 files. The reason for the slow load and big cache is you have NetSurf set to remember a year of browsing history. In NetSurf's choices choose Security, and lower the value for Duration in Site history. The default it 28 days. In my copy of NetSurf, Site history is set to 1 day, but Global history still has entries for Yesterday, Tuesday, Monday, Last week, 2 weeks ago and 3 weeks ago. If I understand it right, the site history setting controls how long things like thumbnails are kept in the cache. I think the global history is fixed at 28 days. The User Guide says otherwise: Site history NetSurf records all the web sites you have visited as part of its global history feature. Entries can be deleted from the global history window directly and NetSurf allows the length of time items are kept in global history to be configured. Duration This option can be used to set the length of time entries are stored in global history, before they are deleted. Setting the duration to zero days turns off the global history feature. Tony
Re: Speed of loading NetSurf
On Thu, 28 May 2009 19:44:31 +0100 Steve Fryatt li...@stevefryatt.org.uk wrote: Maybe font canning could be filtered? And also, once the fonts have been canned where is the data cached? Is it wasting space somewhere y retaining font data for fonts that will probably never be used? It's stored in !Scrap (in a file called RUfl_cache). On this machine, with a few fonts installed, it takes up 277K. I think that's a reasonable price to pay for improved text display. And is another reason why people shouldn't keep !Scrap in a RAM disc, which is sadly a common misconceived practise (certainly on Iyonixes!) I did specify a !Caches to go along with !Scrap at one point; and a developer (whose name is clouded in an evening of real ale) has taken the idea on; but I don't believe anything actually uses it. B.
