From: Livio B. S. <li...@im...> - 2002-02-20 18:23:13
|
Hello everyone! 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 Dillo): http://www.ime.usp.br/~livio/dillo/patches/cache-size-limit.diff 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: cache_size=5242880 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! -- Livio <li...@im...> |