I noticed my laptop running slow and I notice that I have hundreds of
cookies. Will having these slow down the speed of my computer?

--
Robert Pearson
ParaMind Brainstorming Software http://www.paramind.net
Creative Virtue Press/Telical Books/Regenerative Music
http://www.rspearson.com/

telicalbook wrote:
Which browser?

Thousands of cookies wont slow your computer down, and I doubt it'd
slow any browser down either. But IE does have problems with folders
containing more than 32,000 "things". If the cache, for example,
contains to many files IE sometimes chokes. Firefox and other browsers
dont care, using their own much more efficient cache/cookie store
instead

SpaceGirl wrote:

I was not aware of that. Is it a Windows thing or IE specific?



--
Brian Wakem
Email: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/b.wakem/myemail.png

"Brian Wakem" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:3smuafFoip88U1@individual.net...
I'm reasonably sure its Windows specific. I once worked on a project where
we had tens of thousands of files in a folder, and performance (even in a
command windows) sucked. Reducing the number of files (by spreading them
across sub directories) significantly improved performance. I don't know
where the figure of 32000 that SpaceGirl quoted comes from, but from my
experience it sounds about right.
--
Brian Cryer
www.cryer.co.uk/brian

Brian Cryer wrote:

I see. I have a directory on our Linux (Redhat Enterprise 4) server with
160,860 files in, totaling 8.2GB

I full directory listing takes 1.3 seconds, and calling stat on the file
takes 0.002 seconds.



$ time ls -1 | wc -l
160860

real 0m1.334s
user 0m1.148s
sys 0m0.195s

$ time stat 1128025810.594.doc
File: `1128025810.594.doc'
Size: 46592 Blocks: 96 IO Block: 4096 regular file
Device: 801h/2049d Inode: 7078994 Links: 1
Access: (0644/-rw-r--r--) Uid: ( 48/ apache) Gid: ( 48/ apache)
Access: 2005-10-01 14:30:05.000000000 +0100
Modify: 2005-09-29 21:30:10.000000000 +0100
Change: 2005-09-29 21:30:10.000000000 +0100

real 0m0.002s
user 0m0.000s
sys 0m0.002s


--
Brian Wakem
Email: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/b.wakem/myemail.png

Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster
From the safety of the cafeteria
Brian Cryer <brianc@127.0.0.1.activesol.co.uk> said:

Interesting, we noticed similar effect with VMS many eons ago.

paradise? or maybe it's 32767

--
William Tasso

virtue is its own punishment

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 16:23:01 -0000, "Brian Cryer"
<brianc@127.0.0.1.activesol.co.uk> wrote:

Windows certainly DOES have a limit on the number of directoy entries,
and even number of files on a disk - I don't know the actual limits.

You can easily test for yourself, just write a program to create files
sequentially between 0 and 999,999,999,999 and see what happens! (yes
I have tried it).

Matt


--
The Probert Encyclopaedia
Over 235,000 definitions and descriptions
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com

"Brian Wakem" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:3smvqdFo3l7rU1@individual.net...
Just goes to show, like I said, its (Microsoft) Windows specific. It doesn't
surprise me that a Unix box can out perform - but boy, by what a margin!!

It was on NT4 that I encountered the slow down (probably NTFS, but I'm not
sure because it was a long time ago). I think I had somewhere in the region
of 60-80,000 files so significantly less than your 160,000 and performance
was so bad that initially I thought the machine had crashed. No idea how
Windows 2000, XP or 2003 compare.
--
Brian Cryer
www.cryer.co.uk/brian

Per telicalbook:
If it's any comfort, you aren't the only one.

I was blaming it on my broadband provider until it finally dawned on me that IE
was really slow even opening something in C:\Temp.

Just checked my Cookies folder and it only has 344 files in it.
--
PeteCresswell

In: <1130768525.771393.146310@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups .com>, "telicalbook" <telicalbook@aol.com> wrote:
I've noticed memory leaks in browsers, (firefox) shutting down the browser
and restarting will take care of those.

Not sure about IE though. (I don't have it :-/)

One would imagine a large number of "anythings" would slow down a browser,
unless cookie storage is done via a DBM type of device. (or carefully planned
out filesystem) Some years ago there was an article in Dr. Dobbs magazine
about using directory structures for databases.

The long and short of it is that you want to spread them out so the filesystem
can locate them faster.

One thing to be mindful of, and this will catch some off guard is memory cache
in these "new" fangled "virtual memory" systems. :-)

Here's the problem:

You load a page.

You load next page, current page is cached to memory, previous page
is swapped to disk.

Since you've got virtual memory, the previous page (or n-pages back) probably
WAS on disk in the swap area, effectively, taking a page from "memory" and
storing on "disk" is really taking a page from disk and storing it BACK to
disk - a "double swap".

The solution is to actually downgrade your memory cache settings for
a speed improvement. I don't know about windows, but Linux does a much
better job of file cache management than a browser could, since it's "aware"
of everything else asking for memory, applications really shouldn't
normally cache data like that unless there is a need to. (such as
pre-processing)

Jamie
--
http://www.geniegate.com Custom web programming
guhzo_42@lnubb.pbz (rot13) User Management Solutions