8:14 a.m.
On Fri 29/05/09 00:12 , Rob Kendrick <rjek(a)netsurf-browser.org> 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).
9:19 a.m.
New subject: Speed of loading NetSurf
Paul Stewart <paulstewart(a)phawfaux.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri 29/05/09 00:12 , Rob Kendrick <rjek(a)netsurf-browser.org>
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
9:29 a.m.
New subject: Speed of loading NetSurf
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: druck(a)druck.org.uk
Phone: +44-(0)7974 108301
7:29 p.m.
New subject: Speed of loading NetSurf
On 29 May, Paul Stewart wrote in message
<54662.1243577698(a)phawfaux.co.uk>:
On Fri 29/05/09 00:12 , Rob Kendrick <rjek(a)netsurf-browser.org>
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/
9:42 p.m.
New subject: Speed of loading NetSurf
On Fri, 29 May 2009 18:29:03 +0100
Steve Fryatt <lists(a)stevefryatt.org.uk> 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.
5297
days inactive
5297
days old
netsurf-users@netsurf-browser.org
4 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
David J. Ruck -
Paul Stewart -
Rob Kendrick -
Steve Fryatt -
Vince M Hudd