Menu

Main Menu
Talk Get Daily Search

Member's Online

    User Name
    Password

    Tuning the n810 - Alpha work

    Reply
    Page 3 of 12 | Prev |   1     2   3   4     5   | Next | Last
    ghoonk | # 21 | 2008-03-10, 14:18 | Report

    Argh. It resets on reboot?

    Edit | Forward | Quote | Quick Reply | Thanks

     
    Cheesebaron | # 22 | 2008-03-10, 16:33 | Report

    I hope its okay that I've made a blog post about this on my own blog.

    You can see it here: http://ostebaronen.dk/?p=16

    Credits are on the bottom of the blogpost.

    Edit | Forward | Quote | Quick Reply | Thanks

     
    Inate00 | # 23 | 2008-03-10, 16:50 | Report

    Originally Posted by brontide View Post
    Reboot the device and then go into Control Panel -> Memory -> Virtual. I have increased my swap to 64MB and after a few hours of use it has usually swapped out 32+MB to swap and seems more responsive.
    .
    Well, that answered one of my questions ( I think) however when I go to my virtual memory, it is already at 128MB. What does this mean?

    Edit | Forward | Quote | Quick Reply | Thanks

     
    Bundyo | # 24 | 2008-03-10, 20:05 | Report

    Should work on any linux, but i will recommend you to not go too up in the memory settings for the 770. Maybe half the browser cache will be good

    I can confirm these settings are doing wonders for the 770 with OS2008HE

    Edit | Forward | Quote | Quick Reply | Thanks

    Last edited by Bundyo; 2008-03-10 at 20:13.

     
    GeraldKo | # 25 | 2008-03-10, 20:39 | Report

    Originally Posted by brontide View Post
    At some point soon I'm going to have to blow away my configs to get a feeling for the defaults again.
    brontide, alternatively you could set up to dual boot from MMC and compare performance using an unmodified boot from flash to performance booting from an MMC OS that has your modifications.

    Edit | Forward | Quote | Quick Reply | Thanks
    The Following User Says Thank You to GeraldKo For This Useful Post:
    Alan_Peery

     
    Benson | # 26 | 2008-03-10, 20:53 | Report

    A couple questions:
    Originally Posted by brontide View Post
    user_pref("nglayout.initialpaint.delay",2000);
    Seems a bit harsh, unless you're on a slow connection? If it's the same as FF, that's in ms, so 2 seconds instead of 0.25 (default). I can see slowing it some, to reduce CPU load, but I'm thinking 1000 seems better. Else, if your page takes 2.01 s to arrive, you wouldn't see the final thing until 1.99 s later, or am I understanding this wrong?

    Originally Posted by
    user_pref("content.notify.interval", 1250000);
    user_pref("content.notify.ontimer", true);
    What are these doing? I googled briefly, and found people using them to speed FF up, but no explanations. Are there docs somewhere on this stuff?

    Everything else made pretty good sense to me.

    Edit | Forward | Quote | Quick Reply | Thanks
    The Following User Says Thank You to Benson For This Useful Post:
    Faz

     
    Bundyo | # 27 | 2008-03-10, 20:57 | Report

    http://kb.mozillazine.org/Content.notify.interval
    http://kb.mozillazine.org/Content.notify.ontimer
    http://kb.mozillazine.org/Nglayout.initialpaint.delay

    Edit | Forward | Quote | Quick Reply | Thanks
    The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Bundyo For This Useful Post:
    Benson, Faz, maillaxa

     
    Benson | # 28 | 2008-03-10, 21:11 | Report

    Thanks for those links, and the implied links to anything else in prefs.js. Looks like a great resource.

    Edit | Forward | Quote | Quick Reply | Thanks

     
    brontide | # 29 | 2008-03-10, 22:02 | Report

    nglayout seems a little harsh, but think about how long it takes most websites to load. The longer that initial paint is pushed off, the more data can be downloaded without contention from the rendering engine.

    the other two, I can't even tell if they are working, but the theory is to increase the lag between reflows of the page while the data is being downloaded.

    Personally I think the majority of the speedup probably come from the large memory cache and the reduction in max connections.

    For the 770 I would probably choose a 4 or 6 mb cache rather than 8 because it has half the ram.

    Edit | Forward | Quote | Quick Reply | Thanks

     
    Bundyo | # 30 | 2008-03-10, 22:04 | Report

    Originally Posted by brontide View Post
    For the 770 I would probably choose a 4 or 6 mb cache rather than 8 because it has half the ram.
    Yes, i chose 4 too.

    Edit | Forward | Quote | Quick Reply | Thanks

     
    Page 3 of 12 | Prev |   1     2   3   4     5   | Next | Last
vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Normal Logout