Re: netsurf: branch master updated. release/3.2-500-gd08acbc

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 01:40:47PM +0000, Chris Young wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Nov 2014 23:57:22 +0000, Commit Mailer wibbled on for an age:
>
> > correctly calculate writeout bandwidth and properly impose limits
>
> Is this really right?
>
> (22.696681) content/llcache.c llcache_persist 2414: Wrote 884 bytes in 225ms bw:3928 http://aminet.net/pics/at.gif
> (22.696759) content/llcache.c llcache_persist 2420: Overran timeslot
> (22.696828) content/llcache.c llcache_persist 2426: Cannot write minimum bandwidth
> (22.697699) amiga/misc.c ami_misc_req 51: Disc cache write bandwidth is too slow to be useful, disabling cache

well under 4000 bytes a second is so slow that it is not useful. The
disc caching really needs to be several multiples of the network
conenction speed to be useful. Although the minimum bandwidth setting
is a passe din parameter and you can chnage the default value in
desktop/netsurf.c to experiment.

>
> (22.497406) content/llcache.c llcache_persist 2414: Wrote 1480 bytes in 114ms bw:12982 http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/view/1_4_38/cream/hi/news/img/services.gif
> (22.497485) content/llcache.c llcache_persist 2420: Overran timeslot
> (22.497549) content/llcache.c llcache_persist 2426: Cannot write minimum bandwidth
> (22.497751) amiga/misc.c ami_misc_req 51: Disc cache write bandwidth is too slow to be useful, disabling cache
>
> (16.366240) content/llcache.c llcache_persist 2414: Wrote 3931 bytes in 263ms bw:14946 http://i2.cdnds.net/13/47/hearst.png
> (16.366319) content/llcache.c llcache_persist 2420: Overran timeslot
> (16.366384) content/llcache.c llcache_persist 2426: Cannot write minimum bandwidth
> (16.366585) amiga/misc.c ami_misc_req 51: Disc cache write bandwidth is too slow to be useful, disabling cache
>
> Even if I spawn it off to another process (so store returns
> immediately) I still get the not enough bandwidth message.

Is it possible that your implementation of a milisecond monotonic
counter in libnsutils is problematic? If it is returning microseconds
instead of miliseconds that would cause this erroneus behaviour.

>
> Chris
>
>

--
Regards Vincent
http://www.kyllikki.org/