On May 6, 2008, Matthew Toseland wrote: > On Tuesday 06 May 2008 15:50, Robert Hailey wrote: > > > > On May 5, 2008, at 5:49 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > [...] > > > - Freenet is slooooooooow, especially in this case where it had an > > > untweaked > > > browser. After a long delay, two sites loaded, after a longer delay, > > > several > > > sites loaded at once; this strongly suggests imho that the problem > > > is caused > > > by not finding the browser. User reports significant improvement in > > > speed > > > after a few minutes. > > > - Connection limit is definitely a problem: many images which should > > > be in the > > > same container not loading; same for the Potentially Dangerous Content > > > warning. > > > > Surely the browser isn't the one which understands freenet containers. > > Are we coalescing requests for the same container internally? > > Not at the client level. There is room for further improvement here. But we > do > do some coalescing: we won't have multiple local requests in flight for the > same key, for example. > > Most of the above issues were caused by the browser not being found, this has > been fixed in 90% of cases by the changes I made to browse.cmd. > > However the fact remains that a newbie node is still rather disappointingly > slow, even with a tweaked browser.
If the user is in the habit of stoping and starting the node and has a queue with a large number of blocks, browsing will be very slow (or impossible) until the rebuild if the queue completes. See bug 2334. Ed _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
