[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew M. Bishop): > "Paul A. Rombouts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Having many small files is quite inefficient. For example, on my system > > each U* > > file occupies 4K of disk space.
Would there be any problem to make a wwwoffle cache partition 'blocksize 1024' ? With ext3 or Reiser ? > I try and keep WWWOFFLE simple, which is a good and often recommended > way of writing software. It is a method that tends to produce robust > software. With all the programs i've seen, i'm in favour of this approach, too. But then, wwwoffle isn't that time critical to me personally. Anyway users can adapt their browsing behaviour, too. For example, open tabs in the background while you're still reading a page. Of course, if you run a LAN with high traffic peaks there might be reason to discuss the issue. > There is no one special file that contains all of the magic to enable > the program to work. Even better there is no single file that will > cause the program to fail if it gets lost or corrupted. How about a compromise: Have a hash file in every domain dir ? Maybe for some weird reason one domain could get corrupted. But it would not affect any other. And still you can operate on single domains easily. Well, i'm not experienced in the implications of modifying anything essential for the configuration options, and the effect on other program aspects. I only know that sometimes the contras outweight the pro's. > I also keep WWWOFFLE simple by not having the processes communicate > between themselves. WWWOFFLE has many processes rather than > multi-threading or any other inter-process communication. This means > that any of the processes can die or start corrupting memory without > affecting any other. With pages full of weird javascript or embedded flashs 'out there' (and who knows what next), this does sound comprehensible to me. I've got problems enought with the browser threadings. > On the other hand anybody is free to modify WWWOFFLE for their own > personal use or any other use allowed by the license. This is one of > the freedoms that free software gives you. You may want to do this to > learn about programming, to make a better WWWOFFLE or for any other > reason. Have fun and enjoy yourself. In summary I would consider that 'wasted' disk space below say 1 GB on the average will be no problem within the next years, assuming old disks < 10 GB are dying out. Time is much more critical to me, personally, and i believe for most others too. I'm not proud of it. But hightech is accelerating life, and not even in jungle you can't escape the machines. � /\/
