Re: Atari build 5032: cache folder

Vincent, you did it! I tested FireBee version and nov disk cache also works! Now surfing the net is also faster. Thank you a lot! There is still one problem with Atari built and if you have will to take a look. it doesnt display the webp pictures. Instead to display it, it wants to download

Re: Atari build 5032: cache folder

switched the binary back to a previous build but that failed as > > well. Investigation showed that the cache folder had gone. > > > > I re-created it and the older version runs again but 5032 deletes it. > > > > > > Peter > > I beleive I have fixed this now. T

Re: Atari build 5032: cache folder

On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 10:33:10PM +, Peter Slegg wrote: > > I have just installed the Atari test build 5032 and it throws an error. > > NetSurf failed to initialise > > > I switched the binary back to a previous build but that failed as > well. Investigation show

Re: Atari build 5032: cache folder

I dont remember such issues in the past but I know disc cache never worked for me. If I understand right the errors I posted, NetSurf cant update the file as the file is locked? I guess the file should be released after update/creation? Vido V V ned., 22. mar. 2020 ob 23:24 je oseba Peter Slegg

Re: Atari build 5032: cache folder

On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 19:54:06 , Peter Slegg wrote: > Hi Vido, > > From a quick look at the commit, I think if there is any issue > with the cache it deletes it. > > http://git.netsurf-browser.org/netsurf.git/commit/?id=14286b381b12034140768800c7ba10baa7c3b334 > > I suspect i

Re: Atari build 5032: cache folder

Yes I confirm this behavior. NesSurf wont stard if I remove cache folder, ... But while I am surfing I ger this error: (235.674993) [ERR netsurf] content/fs_backing_store.c:1024 set_store_entry: attempt to overwrite entry with in use data (235.674994) [ERR netsurf] content/fs_backing_store.c

Re: Atari build 5032: cache folder

Yes I tried 5033 as well, same problem. Like I said, IF there is a problem with the cache it deletes the folder and then doesn't re-create it. Experiment: Delete/Move your cache folder and create a new, empty one. Start Netsurf. I reckon it will throw an error and not start. Peter On Tue

Re: Atari build 5032: cache folder

Hi Peter, Did you try 5033 build? In my case cache is not deleted. As I understand in your case NetSurf just throws an error and then it runs so you can surf the web? Vido V V pon., 9. mar. 2020 ob 20:54 je oseba Peter Slegg < psl...@scubadivers.co.uk> napisala: > Hi Vido, > &g

Re: Atari build 5032: cache folder

Hi Vido, >From a quick look at the commit, I think if there is any issue with the cache it deletes it. http://git.netsurf-browser.org/netsurf.git/commit/?id=14286b381b12034140768800c7ba10baa7c3b334 I suspect it cannot create it again for some reason. Peter On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 20:03:08 , U

Re: Atari build 5032: cache folder

On my FireBee build 5033 is running. Cache folder is present. But I get some other error on the console which I dont remember right now. But NetSurf is running fine. Vido V V sob., 7. mar. 2020 ob 18:06 je oseba Peter Slegg < psl...@scubadivers.co.uk> napisala: > On Sat, 29 Feb 2020

Re: Atari build 5032: cache folder

On Sat, 29 Feb 2020 22:33:10 , Peter Slegg wrote: > > I have just installed the Atari test build 5032 and it throws an error. > > NetSurf failed to initialise > > > I switched the binary back to a previous build but that failed as > well. Investigation showed that the cach

Atari build 5032: cache folder

I have just installed the Atari test build 5032 and it throws an error. NetSurf failed to initialise I switched the binary back to a previous build but that failed as well. Investigation showed that the cache folder had gone. I re-created it and the older version runs again but 5032 deletes

Re: Netsurf Disc Cache

In article <56ef43aa6dnets...@avisoft.f9.co.uk>, Martin Avison <nets...@avisoft.f9.co.uk> wrote: > If anyone wants to try my small program which produces file and directory > statistics for the disc cache, plus an obey file which if run will delete > all empty directories,

Netsurf Disc Cache

I know from previous posts that using the Netsurf v3.7 disc cache on my Iyonix running RISC OS is probably not improving performance, depending on how low my internet speed is. I am using it to gain experience in the hope that newer, faster hardware will bring some performance benefits. After

Netsurf Cache

After an informative thread on how the disc cache is used by Netsurf I wrote: On 13 Apr 2016 in article <55705bbd12nets...@avisoft.f9.co.uk>, Martin Avison <nets...@avisoft.f9.co.uk> wrote: > I have now deleted the whole cache, and reset Netsurf to the default > values

Re: !Cache

In article <55bcf7a3bdnets...@avisoft.f9.co.uk>, Martin Avison wrote: > 3.5 (6th April 1016) So before the Norman Conquest, then? -- | John Williams | joh...@ukgateway.net Names for Soul Band:- Soul Doubt *

Re: !Cache

lled Netsurf. This appeasrs to work fine, currently it's 492K - > > with 75 directories in it. > Replacing the directory with an image filing system using a file format > that is not designed for random access will render the cache totally and > utterly pointless unless you're on 3600 bau

Re: !Cache

ng system using a file format that is not designed for random access will render the cache totally and utterly pointless unless you're on 3600 baud internet. Perhaps not even then. B.

Re: !Cache

In article <55bcdc22b0nets...@avisoft.f9.co.uk>, Martin Avison <nets...@avisoft.f9.co.uk> wrote: > How does !Cache take account of NS choices? Disc cache is set to 1024MB. > > What are the disadvantages of using a zip fine for Netsurf in !Cache. > > This is on ARM

Re: !Cache

In article <55bc5e48e6li...@torrens.org.uk>, Richard Torrens (lists) <li...@torrens.org.uk> wrote: > My SSD (250GB nominal) was running out - only about 6BG free. > So I deleted !Cache's Netsurf directory. Now 157GB. > Two questions: > How does !Cache take account o

Re: Netsurf Cache -- relocation tangent

In article <1fd5ae6f55@abbeypress.net>, Jim Nagel <nets...@abbeypress.co.uk> wrote: > Several months ago I got fed up with this, and also with time wasted > by !Locate searching through all of !Cache. So on all my machines I > made a new directory that comes alphabet

Netsurf Cache

In article <20160413104528.ga24...@kyllikki.org>, Vincent Sanders <vi...@netsurf-browser.org> wrote: > I will go over how this feature works once again. [Snip] Thanks Vincent for the long and detailed explanation of how Netsurf uses the cache. After over 45 years working w

Re: Netsurf Cache

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 12:06:04PM +0100, David Pitt wrote: > > How about this from a Titanium :- > > (75142.82) content/llcache.c:3402 llcache_finalise: Backing store wrote > 2590212 bytes in 1394 ms (average 1858114 bytes/second) 1.8MB/sec to an SSD is nothing to write home about. I'd

Re: Netsurf Cache

Vincent Sanders, on 13 Apr, wrote: > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 02:49:39PM +0100, nets...@avisoft.f9.co.uk wrote: > > There was much discussion about a year ago about the cache performance > > on RISC OS, and there were some code changes, but I would like to add > >

Re: Netsurf Cache

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 02:49:39PM +0100, nets...@avisoft.f9.co.uk wrote: > There was much discussion about a year ago about the cache performance on > RISC OS, and there were some code changes, but I would like to add the > results of some investigations of the Netsurf v3.4 cache on

Re: Netsurf Cache -- relocation tangent

Richard Porter wrote on 12 Apr: > I exclude any cache directories from backups. Ditto Scrapdirs. When you do a search, however, !Locate so far lacks the ability to exclude specified directories. That's what decided me to move !Cache and !Scrap to the very end of the root directory. !Loc

Re: Netsurf Cache -- relocation tangent

On 12 Apr 2016 Richard Porter <r...@minijem.plus.com> wrote: > On 12 Apr 2016 Jim Nagel wrote: >> Martin Avison wrote on 12 Apr: >>> ... problems with the cache taking large amounts of disc >>> space, and the resulting long backup times for !Boot ... &

Re: Netsurf Cache -- relocation tangent

In article <485cc96f55.r...@user.minijem.plus.com>, Richard Porter <r...@minijem.plus.com> wrote: > I exclude any cache directories from backups. Ditto ScrapDirs. Same here, there is no point. -- Stuart Winsor Tools With A Mission sending tools across the world http://www.twam.co.uk/

Re: Netsurf Cache -- relocation tangent

On 12 Apr 2016 Jim Nagel wrote: > Martin Avison wrote on 12 Apr: >> ... problems with the cache taking large amounts of disc >> space, and the resulting long backup times for !Boot ... > Several months ago I got fed up with this, and also with time wasted > by !Locate

Re: Netsurf Cache -- relocation tangent

In article <1fd5ae6f55@abbeypress.net>, Jim Nagel wrote: > So on all my machines I made a new directory that comes alphabetically > last: $._ That may well not come last on all filing systems, so no-one make that assumption. Jim doesn't specify what FS(s) all

Re: Netsurf Cache -- relocation tangent

Martin Avison wrote on 12 Apr: > ... problems with the cache taking large amounts of disc > space, and the resulting long backup times for !Boot ... Several months ago I got fed up with this, and also with time wasted by !Locate searching through all of !Cache. So on all my machines I

Netsurf Cache

There was much discussion about a year ago about the cache performance on RISC OS, and there were some code changes, but I would like to add the results of some investigations of the Netsurf v3.4 cache on my Iyonix, running RISC OS 5.23 (11 Oct 2015). In the past I had problems with the cache

Re: More disc cache improvements

of you have discovered. I have improved whats reported with build CI 2774 and would appreciate two lines of output which appear all together near the end of the log. An example is: content/fs_backing_store.c finalise 1613: Cache total/hit/miss/fail (counts) 2620/240/2380/0 (100%/9%/90%/0

Re: More disc cache improvements

formatted SD card (7033.74) content/fs_backing_store.c finalise 1613: Cache total/hit/miss/fail (counts) 2461/687/1774/0 (100%/27%/72%/0%) (7033.74) content/llcache.c llcache_finalise 3361: Backing store wrote 22931046 bytes in 0 ms average 71300 bytes/second Iyonix, RISC OS 5.22, 38 GiB

Re: More disc cache improvements

at exit as most of you have discovered. I have improved whats reported with build CI 2774 and would appreciate two lines of output which appear all together near the end of the log. An example is: content/fs_backing_store.c finalise 1613: Cache total/hit/miss/fail (counts) 2620/240/2380/0 (100%/9

Re: More disc cache improvements

In message e75637c054.andrew-...@waitrose.com on 7 May 2015 Andrew Pinder andrew.pin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote: I wonder how stable the measurements are. I've just upgraded this ARMini to RO 5.22 so have redone the measurements, still with NS#2771: 161126 bytes/second. That's a massive

Re: More disc cache improvements

In article 0c9680c054.andrew-...@waitrose.com, Andrew Pinder andrew.pin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote: I'm curious that there is so much variability! Will some of this not be due to the fact that stuff is already in the cache and won't be saved again? -- Chris Johnson

Re: More disc cache improvements

that stuff is already in the cache and won't be saved again? I expect so, but if so it makes it difficult to assess the performance of the cache without explicit instructions on whether it should be cleared. Regards Andrew -- Andrew Pinder

Re: More disc cache improvements

In article 0c9680c054.andrew-...@waitrose.com, [snip] More measurements: Various sites including BBC election coverage: 212787 bytes/second Relaunch, load home page only and quit: 0 bytes/second ??? Same again, but force a refresh and then quit: 31146 bytes/second Same again, but after the

Re: More disc cache improvements

the disc cache performance even more. I would again be grateful if suitably interested users could try test CI build 2771 or later. [snip] I have also adjusted how the computation of low bandwidth is made to try and make it more stable and less trigger happy. I would be interested in getting

Re: More disc cache improvements

Vincent Sanders, on 5 May, wrote: Further to my previous efforts I have made an attempt to improve the disc cache performance even more. I would again be grateful if suitably interested users could try test CI build 2771 or later. [snip] I am especially interested in testing from the Iyonix

Re: More disc cache improvements

the disc cache disabled before, because of bandwidth warnings etc. Cache now set to 1 GB. This is the result: (868.07) content/llcache.c llcache_finalise 3361: Backing store average bandwidth 652836 bytes/second This is certainly better than the last time I tried this test, probably getting

Re: More disc cache improvements

Using a PandaBoard with the cache on a Fat32 formatted SSD (not the SD card) gave the following: (663.19) content/llcache.c llcache_finalise 3361: Backing store average bandwidth 414186 bytes/second -- Chris Johnson

More disc cache improvements

Further to my previous efforts I have made an attempt to improve the disc cache performance even more. I would again be grateful if suitably interested users could try test CI build 2771 or later. The previous changes switched to using a small number of large files to hold all the small entries

Re: More disc cache improvements

In article 20150505103028.gg19...@kyllikki.org, Vincent Sanders vi...@netsurf-browser.org wrote: This change should be beneficial to RISC OS users as filecore is (apparently) dreadful at this kind of usage pattern. I wonder if this is because RISC OS files are 'defragmented' all the time - I

Re: More disc cache improvements

On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 11:48:46AM +0100, cj wrote: In article 20150505103028.gg19...@kyllikki.org, Vincent Sanders vi...@netsurf-browser.org wrote: This change should be beneficial to RISC OS users as filecore is (apparently) dreadful at this kind of usage pattern. I wonder if this is

Re: More disc cache improvements

In article 20150505103028.gg19...@kyllikki.org, Vincent Sanders vi...@netsurf-browser.org wrote: Further to my previous efforts I have made an attempt to improve the disc cache performance even more. I would again be grateful if suitably interested users could try test CI build 2771 or later

Re: More disc cache improvements

In message 20150505103028.gg19...@kyllikki.org on 5 May 2015 Vincent Sanders vi...@netsurf-browser.org wrote: Further to my previous efforts I have made an attempt to improve the disc cache performance even more. I would again be grateful if suitably interested users could try test CI build

Re: Updated disc cache

: the program now *sometimes* doesn't complain about disc cache bandwidth, whereas previously it invariably complained! It seems to be completely random: here are results from three runs done within minutes of each other, of which the cache failed on two almost instantly and gave no trouble

Re: Updated disc cache summary

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

Re: Updated disc cache summary

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

Updated disc cache summary

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 with modern OS it made no great improvement as their OS could already cope with the directory layout

Re: Updated disc cache summary

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/

Re: Updated disc cache

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

Re: Updated disc cache

-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

Re: Updated disc cache

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

Re: Updated disc cache

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

Re: Updated disc cache

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

Re: Updated disc cache

[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

Re: Updated disc cache

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

Re: Updated disc cache

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. --

Updated disc cache

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

Re: Updated disc cache

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

Re: Updated disc cache

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

Re: Updated disc cache

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

Re: Updated disc cache

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

Re: Updated disc cache

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

Re: Updated disc cache

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

Re: Updated disc cache

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

Re: Updated disc cache

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

Re: Updated disc 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

Re: Updated disc cache

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

Re: Updated disc cache

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

Re: Updated disc cache

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

Re: Updated disc cache

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

Re: Updated disc cache

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. Yes, there seem to be lots of directories - many empty. The non-empty ones often only contain directories. And the ones containing files rarely

Re: Updated disc cache

systems the cache must deal with, the result is lowest common denominator. Beleive me when I say working out that limit set from a many dimensional dataset like that was not easy With the changes I have just made however more than 90% of metadata and 70% of actual data ends up in the large block

Re: Updated disc cache

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

Re: Disc cache updates

In article 549f1fa454.andrew-...@waitrose.com, Andrew Pinder andrew.pin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote: I'm finding this on my ARMini. Is this common? I also see it from time to time on my ARMX6 and that's got a fast SATA SSD. -- Stuart Winsor Tools With A Mission sending tools across the world

Re: Disc cache updates

: The disc cache has recently been updated to track the speed of write operations. As a result of this performance tracking The browser will now detect if a system cannot sustain a write speed of one Megabit (120kilobytes/ second) the cache will disable itself and display a warning. I'm

Re: Disc cache updates

Harriet Bazley wrote Down with categorical imperatives! Kant only had one. -- John Rickman - http://rickman.orpheusweb.co.uk/lynx siempre luchar contra el zeitgeist

Re: Disc cache updates

On 14 Mar 2015 as I do recall, Andrew Pinder wrote: In message 20141201160839.gh10...@kyllikki.org on 1 Dec 2014 Vincent Sanders vi...@netsurf-browser.org wrote: The disc cache has recently been updated to track the speed of write operations. As a result of this performance

Re: Disc cache updates

On 14 Mar 2015, Peter Young pnyo...@ormail.co.uk wrote: [snip] Or you could use !Memphis. Application and source files are available at Malcolm Hussain-Gambles' http://www.paymentlabs.com/riscos/tutorials/memphis Tony

Re: Disc cache updates

Andrew Pinder andrew.pin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote: Presumably using !Cache on a RAM disc would be a waste of time as stuff would not be saved when the computer was turned off. Not entirely a waste of time. If during one use of the computer (ie until you next turn it off) you visit multiple pages

Re: Disc cache updates

In message 20141201160839.gh10...@kyllikki.org on 1 Dec 2014 Vincent Sanders vi...@netsurf-browser.org wrote: The disc cache has recently been updated to track the speed of write operations. As a result of this performance tracking The browser will now detect if a system cannot sustain

Re: Disc cache updates

On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 07:44:46 GMT, Andrew Pinder wrote: In message 20141201160839.gh10...@kyllikki.org on 1 Dec 2014 Vincent Sanders vi...@netsurf-browser.org wrote: The disc cache has recently been updated to track the speed of write operations. As a result of this performance

Re: Disc cache updates

In article 036f31a454.pnyo...@pnyoung.ormail.co.uk, Peter Young pnyo...@ormail.co.uk wrote: Memphis is a RAM disc that saves itself at shutdown and loads itself at startup if you configure it to do this. The Cache can grow - by default it is set to 1 GB. It would soon overflow the available

Re: Disc cache updates

On 14 Mar 2015 Andrew Pinder andrew.pin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote: In message 20141201160839.gh10...@kyllikki.org on 1 Dec 2014 Vincent Sanders vi...@netsurf-browser.org wrote: The disc cache has recently been updated to track the speed of write operations. As a result of this performance

Disc cache updates

The disc cache has recently been updated to track the speed of write operations. The implementation of this briefly introduced a bug generating excessive logging (seen as heavy disc writing and cpu load) which has been squished and CI build #2413 should not have the problem. As a result

Re: !Cache management

In article 18f1976b54@abbeypress.net, Jim Nagel nets...@abbeypress.co.uk wrote: The runfile of my active copy in Boot Resources (which presumably came with a recent-ish version of Netsurf inside its usual boot-update file) is dated 2014-09-16, but !Sidediff shows it is identical to the

Re: !Cache management

In article 18f1976b54@abbeypress.net, Jim Nagel nets...@abbeypress.co.uk wrote: cj wrote on 16 Nov: Is anyone else finding that the new Cache feature does not seem to expire its content? Well, that was a revelation. Did a count on !Boot.resources.!cache.caches.default.netsurf

Re: !Cache management

it could be that a week or more of cache contents is not being indexed. This does sound like it may be the cause then. A solution (ie, detection of an unclean exit and thus a garbage collection and index rebuild etc) is on the to do list. Sadly I think the only solution at the moment however

!Cache management

Is anyone else finding that the new Cache feature does not seem to expire its content? I wondered a few weeks ago why the main harddrive on the Iyonix was filling up more quickly than I thought it should. I found the Netsurf cache was close to 10 GB in size. Netsurf was configured for a cache

Re: !Cache management

On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 02:33:57PM +, cj wrote: I checked on the PandaBoard today and lo and behold, the cache contained more than 8 GB of files. This machine was also configured for a 1 GB max and 10 days expiry. I have now deleted and disabled the cache on the PandaRO. On all my

Re: !Cache management

on exit. Ahhh - that could explain it. My machines normally run 24/7, and the only time Netsurf is quit is when I move to the most recent version, which may be a week or more between upgrades. I do get the occasional crash of Netsurf, so it could be that a week or more of cache contents is not being

Re: Cache on Atari build

Should there be anything appearring in the cache folder ? When I turn on OS debug output I can see errors: pid 143 (ns020): sys_socket: fd 10 pid 143 (ns020): sys_connect(10, 0x253AA80, 16) pid 143 (ns020): sys_connect(10): error -325 pid 143 (ns020): Fstat64(u:\g\Applications\netsurf\res\cache

Re: Cache on Atari build

On 5 October 2014 01:20:48 BST, Ole Loots o...@monochrom.net wrote: Unpacking the package makes sure there is an folder called res/cache, AFAIK. I don't know how the netsurf core behaves when the folder is not found. I think the front end is supposed to ensure it exists before enabling

Re: Cache on Atari build

on my Atari system so I'm surprised that it wasn't the case for Peter. Unpacking the package makes sure there is an folder called res/cache, AFAIK. I don't know how the netsurf core behaves when the folder is not found. Greets, Ole

Re: Cache on Atari build

On 2 October 2014 00:38, cj ch...@chris-johnson.org.uk wrote: In article 000def68.01ffd4900...@smtp.freeola.net, Peter Slegg p.sl...@scubadivers.co.uk wrote: A look in the log showed it was trying top open res/cache/control so I created an empty folder res/cache Netsurf was then able

Cache on Atari build

I tried build 2126 and 2127 and they both stopped with a Failed to Initialise message. A look in the log showed it was trying top open res/cache/control so I created an empty folder res/cache Netsurf was then able to start. Should this empty cache folder be added to the build ? Is caching now

  1   2   >