cj, on 3 Apr, wrote:
> In article <mpro.nm8dx001qojsl00l7.pittdj@pittdj.co.uk>,
> David Pitt <pittdj@pittdj.co.uk> wrote:
> > Hmm! My Iyonix did over three time better than that, and there was no
> > "too slow" message. My test piece was http://www.dailymail.co.uk because
> > that is a particularly heavy duty site.
>
> OK. A lot of random browsing around that site led to:
>
> (5743.130000) content/llcache.c llcache_finalise 3352: Backing store
> average bandwidth 531777 bytes/second
>
> which is over 5 times faster. However, I thought we would be talking drive
> speed, which shouldn't be affected by the download speed of any particular
> site, or am I completely up the wrong alley?
I have just a bit of a take two on the Daily Mail site, a longer session,
and this time got an average bandwidth of 447397bytes/second on the Iyonix.
I too would think that cacheing would mainly be about disc speed but I also
think NetSurf's performance is severely hampered by the slow processors
available to RISC OS.
--
David Pitt
No comments:
Post a Comment