From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from cmo-0001.xspmail.jp ([202.238.198.170]) by ewsd; Fri Feb  7 19:15:53 EST 2020
Received: from cmr-0000.xspmail.jp ([202.238.198.117])
	by cmo with ESMTP
	id 0DbKj5c2uajWU0DmpjgF33; Sat, 08 Feb 2020 09:15:51 +0900
Received: from pi3L.jitaku.localdomain ([112.71.204.71])
	by cmr with ESMTPA
	id 0DmojeABO3ObD0Dmpj0npa; Sat, 08 Feb 2020 09:15:51 +0900
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hera.eonet.ne.jp;
	s=x01; t=1581120951; i=kokamoto@hera.eonet.ne.jp;
	bh=fDHc2U+9IpX91XiTn9Sz5We2ipLSsFFQ3LyM3gUZdsg=;
	h=To:Subject:Date:From:In-Reply-To;
	b=P8lMvHYma9cROqf0Bw9AoBK6vs82S4dDHhLlLPcOcLlQpbPwoEXjambjPfJ59UN7d
	 uf60y2kHvfNCbLI7uQPemu3+3ysiUB9ox7M9bymCGvQOtZUBGQKcFCPxrxKFajXFxE
	 T5kBvs2BuPu7XCXZZimfjWo6ECecBinInltRZAQfzG4FvJnghspe0wAa3SD9v/g0V0
	 0INu8KvMDdkVaKirapWclKVIi5U51uWNgL1HnSQYqTRL0VuSZLBiwuIJli/8SkulzS
	 atZHswowFdYvi2akrybwqsP1CPT+Z2kgzhfO2WlM94UXnbTXC0DvDjokJ0r8+J7dKo
	 ooiAVA2euFTLg==
Message-ID: <00303EC5A84E85BAB640C967E136BA92@hera.eonet.ne.jp>
To: 9front@9front.org
Subject: Re: [9front] Netsurf 3.9 for Plan 9 (work in progress)
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2020 09:15:49 +0900
From: kokamoto@hera.eonet.ne.jp
In-Reply-To: 958F0548141D96EC81CAD064ACD6F523@eigenstate.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-ID: <9front.9front.org>
List-Help: <http://lists.9front.org>
X-Glyph: ➈
X-Bullshit: encrypted flexible CSS hypervisor shader 

It spends for getting https://www.netsurf-browser.org/ about 22 secs
on my rpi-3B terminal.
On the other hand, abaco or mothra get it within 2 seconds.
Those latters are rolling paper model, and page looking is much
better in netsurf though.

Kenji

>> why cache at all?
> 
> Fair enough. I haven't benchmarked enough to know if it'll help.
> 
> However, assuming it does, the question is whether there's an
> objection to pushing it into webfs instead of doing it in the
> browser. That affects a few design decisions.