On 3 Apr 2015 as I do recall,
Vincent Sanders wrote:
[snip]
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:
In article 55256ea0.8010...@netsurf-browser.org,
Michael Drake t...@netsurf-browser.org wrote:
On 08/04/15 12:41, Chris Newman wrote:
So given all this, on my RiscPC Strong ARMv4 Adjust 4.39 with Unipod, to
what
should I set the Cache parameters in NetSurf Choices?
Too slow to be
In article 20150408104544.gg18...@kyllikki.org,
Vincent Sanders vi...@netsurf-browser.org wrote:
Just to summarise the outcome of all the observations on the improved
disc cache.
The improvements make the cache viable on many more supported systems,
including more RISC OS systems.
On PC
On 08/04/15 12:41, Chris Newman wrote:
So given all this, on my RiscPC Strong ARMv4 Adjust 4.39 with Unipod, to what
should I set the Cache parameters in NetSurf Choices?
Too slow to be useful. Set disc cache size to 0.
--
Michael Drake http://www.netsurf-browser.org/
In message 20150403111441.gb18...@kyllikki.org
on 3 Apr 2015 Vincent Sanders vi...@netsurf-browser.org 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
In article 20150403135750.ge18...@kyllikki.org,
Vincent Sanders vi...@netsurf-browser.org wrote:
snip
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
In message 54af215e1bch...@chris-johnson.org.uk
on 4 Apr 2015 cj ch...@chris-johnson.org.uk wrote:
In article 54aec5195fstuartli...@orpheusinternet.co.uk,
lists stuartli...@orpheusinternet.co.uk wrote:
Average bandwidth 355822 bytes/second
NetSurf CI #2680 ARMX6
So nothing much to
In article e26e3db054.andrew-...@waitrose.com,
Andrew Pinder andrew.pin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote:
In article 54aec5195fstuartli...@orpheusinternet.co.uk,
lists stuartli...@orpheusinternet.co.uk wrote:
Average bandwidth 355822 bytes/second
NetSurf CI #2680 ARMX6
So nothing much to
In article 20150403111441.gb18...@kyllikki.org,
Vincent Sanders vi...@netsurf-browser.org wrote:
[Snip]
If you are feeling very adventurous you can report the bandwidth
achieved.
[Snip]
(152.54) content/llcache.c llcache_finalise 3352: Backing store
average bandwidth 561256
[snip]
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.
Is there a ',' or an '.' missing somewhere? The
In article 54af215e1bch...@chris-johnson.org.uk,
cj ch...@chris-johnson.org.uk wrote:
NetSurf CI #2680 ARMX6
So nothing much to write home about there, considering some of the
hype surrounding the disc speed of the ARMX6.
I'm not sure how much the download speed affects the results; I
In article 54aec5195fstuartli...@orpheusinternet.co.uk,
lists stuartli...@orpheusinternet.co.uk wrote:
Average bandwidth 355822 bytes/second
NetSurf CI #2680 ARMX6
So nothing much to write home about there, considering some of the
hype surrounding the disc speed of the ARMX6.
--
In article 20150403111441.gb18...@kyllikki.org,
Vincent Sanders vi...@netsurf-browser.org wrote:
(2298.804881) content/llcache.c llcache_finalise 3352: Backing
store average bandwidth 128324035 bytes/second
Hells bells - you'll be lucky to a tenth of that speed on RISC OS
hardware and
Vincent Sanders, on 3 Apr, wrote:
[snip - cache bandwidth]
NetSurf 2696
RPi2 SDFS 6067 bytes/s
RPi2 Fat32FS 15220 bytes/s
Iyonix320252 bytes/s
A9home509265 bytes/s
VRPC W7 SSD 605771 bytes/s
--
David Pitt
cj, on 3 Apr, wrote:
In article 20150403111441.gb18...@kyllikki.org,
Vincent Sanders vi...@netsurf-browser.org wrote:
The bandwidth line will be about 20 lines from the end of the log
I restarted Netsurf with cache enabled on the Iyonix. Loaded up the ROOL
forum. Message came up almost
On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 01:30:14PM +0100, nets...@avisoft.f9.co.uk wrote:
In article 54ae82a927ch...@chris-johnson.org.uk,
cj ch...@chris-johnson.org.uk wrote:
I can see why RISC OS gets indigestion with the cache. Have just
deleted the cache on the Iyonix, and there were over 21,000
Vincent Sanders wrote on 3 Apr:
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
On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 12:48:39PM +0100, Jim Nagel wrote:
Vincent Sanders wrote on 3 Apr:
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
I can see why RISC OS gets indigestion with the cache. Have just
deleted the cache on the Iyonix, and there were over 21,000
directories and over 19,000 files.
--
Chris Johnson
In article 20150403111441.gb18...@kyllikki.org,
Vincent Sanders vi...@netsurf-browser.org wrote:
The bandwidth line will be about 20 lines from the end of the log
I restarted Netsurf with cache enabled on the Iyonix. Loaded up the
ROOL forum. Message came up almost immediately that the cache
I have now tried on the PandaBoard. Used random pages from the Daily
Mail site (not much content if you are not interested in celebrates!).
The first time I tried I fairly quickly ended up with the cache being
disabled - the logged average speed was not much over 100 KB/s.
However, I then reran
In article 20150403111441.gb18...@kyllikki.org,
Vincent Sanders vi...@netsurf-browser.org wrote:
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
cj, on 3 Apr, wrote:
In article mpro.nm8dx001qojsl00l7.pit...@pittdj.co.uk,
David Pitt pit...@pittdj.co.uk wrote:
Hmm! My Iyonix did over three time better than that, and there was no
too slow message. My test piece was http://www.dailymail.co.uk because
that is a particularly heavy
On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 02:39:05PM +0100, cj wrote:
In article mpro.nm8dx001qojsl00l7.pit...@pittdj.co.uk,
David Pitt pit...@pittdj.co.uk wrote:
Hmm! My Iyonix did over three time better than that, and there was
no too slow message. My test piece was http://www.dailymail.co.uk
because
In article mpro.nm8dx001qojsl00l7.pit...@pittdj.co.uk,
David Pitt pit...@pittdj.co.uk wrote:
Hmm! My Iyonix did over three time better than that, and there was
no too slow message. My test piece was http://www.dailymail.co.uk
because that is a particularly heavy duty site.
OK. A lot of
In article 20150403131050.gq29...@platypus.pepperfish.net,
Rob Kendrick r...@netsurf-browser.org wrote:
On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 01:30:14PM +0100, nets...@avisoft.f9.co.uk wrote:
In article 54ae82a927ch...@chris-johnson.org.uk,
cj ch...@chris-johnson.org.uk wrote:
I can see why RISC
snip
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
On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 03:13:17PM +0100, David Pitt wrote:
I also think NetSurf's performance is severely hampered by the slow
processors available to RISC OS.
No, the CPUs are perfectly adequately fast. A Raspberry Pi can do many
megabytes a second when running Linux. RISC OS's IO layer and
28 matches
Mail list logo
