I have started writing a patch that adds a `cache_size' to Dillo's
options, because currently the cache has no limit, therefore,
everything you download gets cached into memory. I've made a very
premature patch, which has a few know bugs...
But what I want to know is, is this a wanted feature? Now that I've
made Dicache optional, does anyone still see Dillo hogging up RAM?
Before the Dicache removal, I could get 40MiB of use from Dillo after
a fews hours of browsing. But now the _maximum_ I've hit is 20MiB.
(which isn't a lot, if you consider that Netscape 4.77 here at home
eats 20Mib if I _only_ open freshmeat.net and slashdot.org :(
The problem with making this patch, is that it'll eventually be an
overhead, especially for low cache_sizes... Maybe I'll have to try
harder to make a "low/no-overhead" solution.
What are the opinions of the Dillo users/developers?
The patch is at (against _today's_ cvs, 20-Feb-2002, I've made some
changes to the cache module, so it won't work with prior versions of
Missing from the patch is the option in dillorc. As said, the option
is `cache_size' and should contain number of _bytes_. If no option is
given in the dillorc, cache_size gets set to 3145728 (3MiB). So if you
can 5MiB of cache, just do:
Or if you want to set it up zero, just do:
cache_size=00 #just plain `0' will make the parser yell :(
best regards to all!