Render webpage to hard disk instead to RAM.



  • Why rendered web pages couldn't be stored on hard disk instead in RAM. It consume so much resources. I know that JavaScript and HTML5 script have to be processed in RAM but some elements can be stored on hard disk. Even today, RAM is still not enough if you have many tabs opened. I think picture bitmaps consume the most of RAM. Do I reason correctly? I always wonder how to optimize RAM usage. And there's this zram https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zram technique that compress RAM using lzo compression, or even better lz4. You could use this technique to decrease RAM usage.



  • Actually most of the users want's exactly the opposite.

    The Chr engine does already an high IO traffic, and many people (me included) are using a RAMdisk for the cache.

    The RAM is cheap nowadays, the HDD traffic makes the experience deadly slow, while the high traffic over a way faster SSD contribute to its wearing.

    In both cases also the high traffic over the storage can make a small FS error way worse.

    The compression can be already used on a ramdisk (just format it as NTFS and compress it), the zram idea could be a good one, but (I guess) it requires some major engine changes, something that is not feasible nowadays because the limited Vivaldi resources, and the constant engine updates.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to Vivaldi Forum was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.