Re: Speed of loading NetSurf

2009-05-29 Thread Rob Kendrick 
On Fri, 29 May 2009 18:29:03 +0100
Steve Fryatt  wrote:

> There's "temporary", and "temporary".  Also, until someone (Adam
> Richardson, IIRC) came up with Cache, RISC OS didn't have defined
> "somewhere" to store "non-transient internal data that isn't
> choices".  As such, Scrap seems to be the best compromise.

Actually, that was my idea, and Adam has taken forward, and developed
upon. :)

Search the developer's list's archives back to almost 3 years ago; 12
June 2006, in a thread called "RUfl_cache".

I don't think the idea got enough momentum to really take off; the
suggestion being that not enough people sabotage their own system by
putting !Scrap into a RAM disc for it to be worth it.

B.

Re: Speed of loading NetSurf

2009-05-29 Thread Steve Fryatt 
On 29 May, Paul Stewart  wrote in message
  <54662.1243577...@phawfaux.co.uk>:

> On Fri 29/05/09 00:12 , Rob Kendrick  wrote:
>
> > And is another reason why people shouldn't keep !Scrap in a RAM disc,
>
> But isn't the whole idea of !Scrap, that all the files stored inside it
> are temporary files?

There's "temporary", and "temporary".  Also, until someone (Adam Richardson,
IIRC) came up with Cache, RISC OS didn't have defined "somewhere" to store
"non-transient internal data that isn't choices".  As such, Scrap seems to be
the best compromise.

> Therefore storing !Scrap in a RAMDisc would appear logical.

Not really.  Not least because it isn't inconceivable that something could try
and store a lot of data in Scrap, use up all the available free RAM, and crash
(or at least fail -- but I wonder how many RISC OS apps really /do/ check
WimpScrap transfers for disc full errors?).

-- 
Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England

http://www.stevefryatt.org.uk/

Re: Speed of loading NetSurf

2009-05-29 Thread Tony Moore 
On 28 May 2009, Tony Moore  wrote:

[snip]

> [I] didn't file a bug report. Perhaps I should do so now?

Done 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=2798361&group_id=51719&atid=464312

Tony

Re: Speed of loading NetSurf

2009-05-29 Thread David J. Ruck 

Paul Stewart wrote:

But isn't the whole idea of !Scrap, that all the files stored inside it are 
temporary files?
Therefore storing !Scrap in a RAMDisc would appear logical. 


That's as maybe, but putting !Scrap in a RAM disc is an archaic practice 
dating back to the use of RISC OS 2 and floppy discs, where to transfer 
data between applications, you would have to reinsert the system disc 
containing !Scrap.


These days it's not beneficial and bad practice for at least 4 reasons:-

1) Applications mainly use RAM transfer for exchanging data between
   each other, so already work faster than disc, and faster than a
   RAM disc.

2) Some applications such as Photodesk may need to store 100MB or more
   of data when processing large images.

3) The RAM disc on the Iyonix actually has a lower peak transfer rate
   than the ATA 100 disc!

4) Some applications store transient data in !Scrap, which can be
   regenerated, but takes additional time at startup, e.g. NetSurf

Cheers
---David

--
Email: dr...@druck.org.uk
Phone: +44-(0)7974 108301

Re: Speed of loading NetSurf

2009-05-29 Thread Vince M Hudd 
Paul Stewart  wrote:
> On Fri 29/05/09 00:12 , Rob Kendrick  wrote:

> > And is another reason why people shouldn't keep !Scrap in a RAM disc,
 
> But isn't the whole idea of !Scrap, that all the files stored inside it
> are temporary files? Therefore storing !Scrap in a RAMDisc would appear
> logical.

That _should_ be true, but the problem is that it's not just used for
scrap/temporary data as it's name suggests - which Rob explained in the rest
of his comment; it's also used for cached data, which could be used across
more than one session.

-- 
Vince M Hudd
Soft Rock Software

Re: Speed of loading NetSurf

2009-05-28 Thread Paul Stewart 

On Fri 29/05/09 00:12 , Rob Kendrick  wrote:

> On Thu, 28 May 2009 19:44:31 +0100
> Steve Fryatt  wrote:
> > > Maybe font canning could be filtered?  And also, once the fonts
> have
> > > been canned where is the data cached? Is it wasting space
> somewhere
> > > y retaining font data for fonts that will probably never be
> used?  
> > 
> > It's stored in !Scrap (in a file called RUfl_cache).  On this
> > machine, with a few fonts installed, it takes up 277K.  I think
> > that's a reasonable price to pay for improved text display.
> And is another reason why people shouldn't keep !Scrap in a RAM
> disc,

But isn't the whole idea of !Scrap, that all the files stored inside it are 
temporary files?
Therefore storing !Scrap in a RAMDisc would appear logical. 


Regards
--
Paul Stewart -  Far Bletchley, Milton Keynes, UK.

Be Bold.  Dare To Be Different.  Use RISC OS (http://www.riscos.com).
It's blue and from outta town - The A9home 
(http://www.advantage6.co.uk/A9hsplash.html).
A9home Compatibility page - 
(http://www.phawfaux.co.uk/a9home/compatibility.asp).

Re: Speed of loading NetSurf

2009-05-28 Thread Rob Kendrick 
On Thu, 28 May 2009 19:44:31 +0100
Steve Fryatt  wrote:

> > Maybe font canning could be filtered?  And also, once the fonts have
> > been canned where is the data cached? Is it wasting space somewhere
> > y retaining font data for fonts that will probably never be used?  
> 
> It's stored in !Scrap (in a file called RUfl_cache).  On this
> machine, with a few fonts installed, it takes up 277K.  I think
> that's a reasonable price to pay for improved text display.

And is another reason why people shouldn't keep !Scrap in a RAM disc,
which is sadly a common misconceived practise (certainly on Iyonixes!)

I did specify a !Caches to go along with !Scrap at one point; and a
developer (whose name is clouded in an evening of real ale) has taken
the idea on; but I don't believe anything actually uses it.

B.

Re: Speed of loading NetSurf

2009-05-28 Thread Steve Fryatt 
On 28 May, Mike Hobbs  wrote in message
  <0f3d6fb4640334e3166743f34ffcad444aa63...@localhost>:

> In message <28366c6250.roger...@rogerarm.freeuk.com> Roger wrote:
>
> > Loading/Running NetSurf (on an Iyonix at least) seems to take 30
> > seconds whereas running Oregano2 takes less that 3 seconds. [I am not
> > including the time that NetSurf, when first run, uses looking at all
> > the fonts].
>
> Actually, I would like to suggest that the time taken for font
> scanning is now an issue since NS 2.1. It now takes several minutes
> to scan fonts on my home machine. Yes, I know its only on the
> first time NS is run, but I can't help thinking that this is all
> wasted time. After all, NS isn't going use all these fonts. Its
> only likely to need the standard set of ROM fonts.

I don't think this is the case: NetSurf is looking for different glyphs
suitable for Unicode display, and the whole point is that these are not in the
ROM fonts.

> Maybe font canning could be filtered?  And also, once the fonts have
> been canned where is the data cached? Is it wasting space somewhere y
> retaining font data for fonts that will probably never be used?

It's stored in !Scrap (in a file called RUfl_cache).  On this machine, with a
few fonts installed, it takes up 277K.  I think that's a reasonable price to
pay for improved text display.

-- 
Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England

http://www.stevefryatt.org.uk/

Re: Speed of loading NetSurf

2009-05-28 Thread Tony Moore 
On 28 May 2009, Michael Drake  wrote:
> In article <715a976250.old_coas...@old_coaster.yahoo.co.uk>,
>Tony Moore  wrote:
> > On 28 May 2009, Michael Drake  wrote:
> > > In article <55618f6250.roger...@rogerarm.freeuk.com>,
> > >Roger Darlington  wrote:
>
> > [snip]
>
> > > > This also prompted me to look in ScrapDirs.WWW.NetSurf.Cache.
> > > > This contains a whopping 202MB in 5866 files.
> > >
> > > The reason for the slow load and big cache is you have NetSurf set
> > > to remember a year of browsing history.
> > >
> > > In NetSurf's choices choose Security, and lower the value for
> > > Duration in Site history. The default it 28 days.
>
> > In my copy of NetSurf, Site history is set to 1 day, but Global
> > history still has entries for Yesterday, Tuesday, Monday, Last week,
> > 2 weeks ago and 3 weeks ago.
>
> If I understand it right, the site history setting controls how long
> things like thumbnails are kept in the cache. I think the global
> history is fixed at 28 days.

The User Guide says otherwise:

   Site history

  NetSurf records all the web sites you have visited as part of its
  global history feature. Entries can be deleted from the global
  history window directly and NetSurf allows the length of time
  items are kept in global history to be configured.

   Duration

  This option can be used to set the length of time entries are
  stored in global history, before they are deleted. Setting the
  duration to zero days turns off the global history feature.

Tony

Re: Speed of loading NetSurf

2009-05-28 Thread Michael Drake 
In article <715a976250.old_coas...@old_coaster.yahoo.co.uk>,
   Tony Moore  wrote:
> On 28 May 2009, Michael Drake  wrote:
> > In article <55618f6250.roger...@rogerarm.freeuk.com>,
> >Roger Darlington  wrote:

> [snip]

> > > This also prompted me to look in ScrapDirs.WWW.NetSurf.Cache. This
> > > contains a whopping 202MB in 5866 files.
> >
> > The reason for the slow load and big cache is you have NetSurf set to
> > remember a year of browsing history.
> >
> > In NetSurf's choices choose Security, and lower the value for Duration
> > in Site history. The default it 28 days.

> In my copy of NetSurf, Site history is set to 1 day, but Global history
> still has entries for Yesterday, Tuesday, Monday, Last week, 2 weeks ago
> and 3 weeks ago.

If I understand it right, the site history setting controls how long
things like thumbnails are kept in the cache. I think the global history
is fixed at 28 days.

Michael

-- 

Michael Drake (tlsa)  http://www.netsurf-browser.org/

Re: Speed of loading NetSurf

2009-05-28 Thread Roger Darlington 
On 28 May 2009, Michael Drake wrote:
> In article <55618f6250.roger...@rogerarm.freeuk.com>,
>Roger Darlington  wrote:
> 
>> OK, have sent that privately Michael.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
>> This also prompted me to look in ScrapDirs.WWW.NetSurf.Cache. This
>> contains a whopping 202MB in 5866 files..
> 
> The reason for the slow load and big cache is you have NetSurf set to
> remember a year of browsing history.
> 
> In NetSurf's choices choose Security, and lower the value for Duration in
> Site history. The default it 28 days.
> 
> I'm not sure why we put that option in the Security section.

OK, thanks Michael.

with the scrapfile cache deleted, and it set to 28 days, it loads in a 
matter of 2 seconds :-))


-- 

Cheers
Roger
Do you Yahoo? Not if I can help it, but I do yell the occasional 
'Yabbadabba Doo'

Re: Speed of loading NetSurf

2009-05-28 Thread Tony Moore 
On 28 May 2009, Michael Drake  wrote:
> In article <55618f6250.roger...@rogerarm.freeuk.com>,
>Roger Darlington  wrote:

[snip]

> > This also prompted me to look in ScrapDirs.WWW.NetSurf.Cache. This
> > contains a whopping 202MB in 5866 files.
>
> The reason for the slow load and big cache is you have NetSurf set to
> remember a year of browsing history.
>
> In NetSurf's choices choose Security, and lower the value for Duration
> in Site history. The default it 28 days.

In my copy of NetSurf, Site history is set to 1 day, but Global history
still has entries for Yesterday, Tuesday, Monday, Last week, 2 weeks ago
and 3 weeks ago. It seems that expiry doesn't work correctly. I filed a
bug report on 3 October 2007:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1806826&group_id=51719&atid=464312

The Cache contains thumbnail images, which should be displayed in the
expanded entries in Global history. However, the association, between
url and thumbnail, appears to be lost when NetSurf is quit so that,
apart from those relating to the current session, the thumbnails - and
cache - are superfluous. I described this problem, on 3 Dec 2008, in
message <03ccf80750.old_coas...@old_coaster.yahoo.co.uk> but, in the
absence of any response, didn't file a bug report. Perhaps I should do
so now?

Tony

Re: Speed of loading NetSurf

2009-05-28 Thread Michael Drake 
In article <55618f6250.roger...@rogerarm.freeuk.com>,
   Roger Darlington  wrote:

> OK, have sent that privately Michael.

Thanks.

> This also prompted me to look in ScrapDirs.WWW.NetSurf.Cache. This 
> contains a whopping 202MB in 5866 files.

The reason for the slow load and big cache is you have NetSurf set to
remember a year of browsing history.

In NetSurf's choices choose Security, and lower the value for Duration in
Site history. The default it 28 days.

I'm not sure why we put that option in the Security section.

Michael

-- 

Michael Drake (tlsa)  http://www.netsurf-browser.org/

Re: Speed of loading NetSurf

2009-05-28 Thread Roger Darlington 
On 28 May 2009, Michael Drake wrote:
> In article <0a92786250.roger...@rogerarm.freeuk.com>,
>Roger Darlington  wrote:
> 
>> Second response:
>> Could it be the size of my NetSurf Memory cache, which is set at
>> 6.4MB?
> 
> That shouldn't matter.
> 
> Please could you zip up and e-mail me the contents of your Choices
> directory for NetSurf. You can find it by double clicking OpenChoices in
> NetSurf's application directory.
> 


OK, have sent that privately Michael.

This also prompted me to look in ScrapDirs.WWW.NetSurf.Cache. This 
contains a whopping 202MB in 5866 files.


-- 

Cheers
Roger
Oh no! I've only just managed to get it all in of kilter.

Re: Speed of loading NetSurf

2009-05-28 Thread Michael Drake 
In article <0a92786250.roger...@rogerarm.freeuk.com>,
   Roger Darlington  wrote:

> Second response:
> Could it be the size of my NetSurf Memory cache, which is set at 
> 6.4MB?

That shouldn't matter.

Please could you zip up and e-mail me the contents of your Choices
directory for NetSurf. You can find it by double clicking OpenChoices in
NetSurf's application directory.

Michael

-- 

Michael Drake (tlsa)  http://www.netsurf-browser.org/

Re: Speed of loading NetSurf

2009-05-28 Thread Roger Darlington 
On 28 May 2009, Michael Drake wrote:
> In article <28366c6250.roger...@rogerarm.freeuk.com>,
>Roger Darlington  wrote:
> 
>> Loading/Running NetSurf (on an Iyonix at least) seems to take 30
>> seconds whereas running Oregano2 takes less that 3 seconds.
> 
> This can happen if you have a vast global history or collection of
> cookies. If you go to global history window and the cookie window and
> manager and delete unwanted stuff, does it get faster?
> 
> Global history:  [iconbar menu] Open > Show global history
> Cookie manager:  [iconbar menu] Open > Show cookies

OK, I did have a lot in there, and have now deleted both all the 
cookies and all the global history.

But I'm afraid that it hasn't speeded it up much at all, just knocked 
a couple of seconds off the 32 seconds, and got it down to 30 seconds.

Something is clearly up with my installation of Netsurf (now v. 2.1), 
and has been for some considerable time it seems over many other 
versions.  I always do a clean instal: removing the old Netsurf 
somewhere else and dragging in a new Netsurf.

So, I'm a bit puzzled now.


-- 

Cheers
Roger
SHOUTING is a Capital offence

Re: Speed of loading NetSurf

2009-05-28 Thread Roger Darlington 
On 28 May 2009, Michael Drake wrote:
> In article <28366c6250.roger...@rogerarm.freeuk.com>,
>Roger Darlington  wrote:
> 
>> Loading/Running NetSurf (on an Iyonix at least) seems to take 30
>> seconds whereas running Oregano2 takes less that 3 seconds.
> 
> This can happen if you have a vast global history or collection of
> cookies. If you go to global history window and the cookie window and
> manager and delete unwanted stuff, does it get faster?
> 
> Global history:  [iconbar menu] Open > Show global history
> Cookie manager:  [iconbar menu] Open > Show cookies

Second response:
Could it be the size of my NetSurf Memory cache, which is set at 
6.4MB?


-- 

Cheers
Roger
My friends think I'm surreal, but I've never been near a sword

Re: Speed of loading NetSurf

2009-05-28 Thread Mike Hobbs 
In message <28366c6250.roger...@rogerarm.freeuk.com> Roger wrote:

> Loading/Running NetSurf (on an Iyonix at least) seems to take 30
> seconds whereas running Oregano2 takes less that 3 seconds. [I am not
> including the time that NetSurf, when first run, uses looking at all
> the fonts].
[snip]

Actually, I would like to suggest that the time taken for font
scanning is now an issue since NS 2.1. It now takes several minutes
to scan fonts on my home machine. Yes, I know its only on the
first time NS is run, but I can't help thinking that this is all
wasted time. After all, NS isn't going use all these fonts. Its
only likely to need the standard set of ROM fonts. Maybe font
scanning could be filtered?  And also, once the fonts have been
scanned where is the data cached? Is it wasting space somewhere
by retaining font data for fonts that will probably never be used?

Regarding non-font-related load time I don't seem to have a
problem on Virtual RPC. Its certainly not taking 30 seconds.


Mike

Re: Speed of loading NetSurf

2009-05-28 Thread Russell Hafter - Lists 
In article <52ef6d6250.wra...@wra1th.plus.com>, Gavin
Wraith  wrote:
> In message <28366c6250.roger...@rogerarm.freeuk.com> you
> wrote:

> > Loading/Running NetSurf (on an Iyonix at least) seems
> > to take 30 seconds whereas running Oregano2 takes less
> > that 3 seconds. [I am not including the time that
> > NetSurf, when first run, uses looking at all the fonts].

> That is odd. For me (NetSurf r7590, Iyonix RO 5.14) from
> clicking on !NetSurf's icon to the appearance of its
> iconbar icon takes under a second.

Only six or seven seconds here on a strongarm RPC, NetSurf
2.1, RISC OS 4.02

-- 
Russell Hafter - Mailing Lists
rh.li...@phone.coop
Need a hotel? 
(NB This link needs Firefox to work)

Re: Speed of loading NetSurf

2009-05-28 Thread Michael Drake 
In article <28366c6250.roger...@rogerarm.freeuk.com>,
   Roger Darlington  wrote:

> Loading/Running NetSurf (on an Iyonix at least) seems to take 30 
> seconds whereas running Oregano2 takes less that 3 seconds.

This can happen if you have a vast global history or collection of
cookies. If you go to global history window and the cookie window and
manager and delete unwanted stuff, does it get faster?

Global history:  [iconbar menu] Open > Show global history
Cookie manager:  [iconbar menu] Open > Show cookies

If that is the issue, it's something we're aware of and could be improved,
given time.

Best regards,

Michael

-- 

Michael Drake (tlsa)  http://www.netsurf-browser.org/

Re: Speed of loading NetSurf

2009-05-28 Thread Gavin Wraith 
In message <28366c6250.roger...@rogerarm.freeuk.com> you wrote:

> Loading/Running NetSurf (on an Iyonix at least) seems to take 30
> seconds whereas running Oregano2 takes less that 3 seconds. [I am not
> including the time that NetSurf, when first run, uses looking at all
> the fonts].

That is odd. For me (NetSurf r7590, Iyonix RO 5.14) from clicking on
!NetSurf's icon to the appearance of its iconbar icon takes under a
second. Or were you referring to the time it takes to download a
particular webpage? I find that that depends upon the vagaries of
the internet - time for domain-name lookup, etc - and the size of
the page.

-- 
Gavin Wraith (ga...@wra1th.plus.com)
Home page: http://www.wra1th.plus.com/