Re: !Cache

2016-09-09 Thread John Williams 
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

2016-09-09 Thread Martin Avison 
In article <20160909125304.gn3...@platypus.pepperfish.net>,
   Rob Kendrick  wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 01:37:42PM +0100, Richard Torrens (lists) wrote:
> > But I have replaced !Cache.Caches.Default.Netsurf with a zip archive
> > called 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 baud internet.  Perhaps not even
> then.

Yes indeed. In addition, as a zip file grows, the updating of it gets
noticeably slower and slower, as it has more and more shuffling to do.
(or at least SparkFS does).   

You may find that after deleting your cache, and then using the latest
version, the cache is better behaved. I am sure that my 300 empty
directories out of 6000+ is better than it used to be. Time will tell.

Ha! I have just noticed that the 'latest' RISC OS version is actually
rather older than I thought according to About this Program ...
3.5 (6th April 1016)

Martin

Re: !Cache

2016-09-09 Thread Rob Kendrick 
On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 01:37:42PM +0100, Richard Torrens (lists) wrote:
> But I have replaced !Cache.Caches.Default.Netsurf with a zip archive
> called 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 baud internet.  Perhaps not even
then.

B.

Re: !Cache

2016-09-09 Thread Richard Torrens (lists) 
In article <55bcdc22b0nets...@avisoft.f9.co.uk>,
   Martin Avison  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 ARMX6. I'm aware that the lfau means that each block is
> > quite large. Not sure how large on a 250GB. There were lots of
> > directories in !Cache.

> I have raised this sort of thing before. I think you would find there
> were lots and lots of *empty* directories. Apparently on other FS such
> directories cause no problems! I even wrote a program to analyse the
> cache, and to create deletes for all empty directories. But I suspect it
> currently has bugs, and I got diverted to other things!

> I think my directory now (after deleting it all like you have in about
> April) is now about 168MB - which is under its 1024MB limit. It does seem
> to be using 6300 directories but only holds 1550 files! Still seems a
> directory overload to me.

There is cerainly a directory overload! 15 directories, each seems about 5
deep, so 75 in all!

At present, it seems each directory has one file in it, but I've not
checked all.

But I have replaced !Cache.Caches.Default.Netsurf with a zip archive
called Netsurf. This appeasrs to work fine, currently it's 492K - with 75
directories in it.

-- 
Richard Torrens.
http://www.Torrens.org.uk for genealogy, natural history, wild food, walks, cats
and more!

Re: !Cache

2016-09-09 Thread Martin Avison 
In article <55bc5e48e6li...@torrens.org.uk>,
   Richard Torrens (lists)  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 of NS choices? Disc cache is set to 1024MB.

> What are the disadvantages of using a zip fine for Nwtsurf in !Cache.

> This is on ARMX6. I'm aware that the lfau means that each block is quite
> large. Not sure how large on a 250GB. There were lots of directories in
> !Cache.

I have raised this sort of thing before. I think you would find there
were lots and lots of *empty* directories. Apparently on other FS such
directories cause no problems! I even wrote a program to analyse the
cache, and to create deletes for all empty directories. But I suspect it
currently has bugs, and I got diverted to other things!

I think my directory now (after deleting it all like you have in about
April) is now about 168MB - which is under its 1024MB limit. It does seem
to be using 6300 directories but only holds 1550 files! Still seems a
directory overload to me.

Martin