Paul B. Gallagher wrote: > Dirk Munk wrote: >> Paul B. Gallagher wrote: >>> Dirk Munk wrote: >>> >>>> I haven't mentioned stability until now, but with these settings >>>> Seamonkey hasn't crashed these last days, and it used to do that >>>> once or twice per day. >>> >>> You may not have used the word "stability" in the bodies of your >>> messages, but when you put "stability" in the subject line and >>> "crash" in the body it's clearly what you're talking about. >>> >>> My experience with SM has been different in that it has crashed only >>> a couple of times a year, usually for nonreproducible reasons. By >>> "crash" I mean "terminated without authorization," not "stopped >>> producing output and accepting user input," which has been happening >>> several times a day. I call that "hanging," because the program is >>> still running according to Windows Task Manager (which usually >>> reports "Not Responding"), and resumes normal operation after two to >>> five minutes. At those times, if I keep demanding a response with >>> mouse clicks, Windows will prompt me to wait or close the >>> unresponsive program. If I choose to wait, SM will eventually revive. >>> Once it does, a normal shutdown and restart of the program (including >>> automatic clearing of cache and cookies) will clean out the crud and >>> allow it to perform well for a while. >>> >>> Since I increased the allowed memory cache size about a week ago, the >>> hangs have decreased drastically in frequency, but have not been >>> entirely eliminated. If I really push it, I can still get it to hang >>> occasionally. But it's a lot more pleasant to run. >>> >>> For other users, I suspect some sources of hangs and crashes are >>> related to badly written ad scripts, but my ad blocker takes care of >>> most of those. And of course if I choose to walk on the sketchier >>> side of the Internet, it's easy to find sites that will serve malware >>> and obnoxious popups insisting that I need to install their >>> anti-malware programs. (Right. I was born yesterday. Well, I guess >>> "there's one born every minute.") But none of that is SeaMonkey's >>> fault, and a decent internet security program will take care of that. >>> >> >> Why don't you try all the other settings as well, and see what >> happens. The network cache settings dramatically reduced CPU cycles, >> and disabling the disk cache made Seamonkey much faster. > > Proper experimental methodology would be to try them one at a time, so > we can tell which ones had which results. I did enable pipelining > yesterday; we'll see what that does. >
After trying them one at a time it would next make sense to try them in combinations to see which have synergy with others. It might be that some are only effective in combination with other settings, while some have similar impacts and might not reinforce or might even interfere with one another. Unfortunately much of this can probably only be determined by experimentation and is likely to vary from Windows to linux to OS X platforms. Dave _______________________________________________ support-seamonkey mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
