The only suggestion I would make is that if someone shares similiar "concerns" such as yourself, you can always play with these settings and remove them later if you want.
]]>Spider.007 wrote:You do know you are DOS'ing every webserver now? 16 connections per server is not a good thing; and will only make webmasters limit this number serverside.
Nah. You're sorely mistaken. If I wanted to DOS someone, they would know it. Please be careful how you throw that word around.
It would be much better to use pipelining to increase performance; it will not deny service to other users
The total number of connections to internet servers has long since been on the rise, for a long time. More advanced web servers have long since made this possible. I don't know who or what server you are referring to exactly. Http 1.0 and 1.1 specifications are just that, specifications.
They aren't just specifications. Most webservers will be configured to allow a maximum of connections; not a number of connections / IP. Therefore most servers will deny requests to other users because you are opening 16 connections at the same time
And, like you say, at worst case those few servers will just limit that serverside, so why not take advantage of those allowing more?
I find it more plausible that Mozilla Firefox will get a bad name with server admins because of these 'tweaks'
If you think it's such an issue, take that up with the developers of Mozilla.
You prefer not to have the power; above being able not to (mis)use it?
Window/IE users have long since made similar tweaks to their registry. Why not enjoy the same? We are running Linux afterall.
The bottom line is, play with the settings.
But don't misuse the powers you have been given
]]>You do know you are DOS'ing every webserver now? 16 connections per server is not a good thing; and will only make webmasters limit this number serverside.
Nah. You're sorely mistaken. If I wanted to DOS someone, they would know it. Please be careful how you throw that word around. The total number of connections to internet servers has long since been on the rise, for a long time. More advanced web servers have long since made this possible. I don't know who or what server you are referring to exactly. Http 1.0 and 1.1 specifications are just that, specifications. And, like you say, at worst case those few servers will just limit that serverside, so why not take advantage of those allowing more? If you think it's such an issue, take that up with the developers of Mozilla. Window/IE users have long since made similar tweaks to their registry. Why not enjoy the same? We are running Linux afterall.
The bottom line is, play with the settings. Having more persistent connections doesn't necessarily increase performance. Pipelining has a better effect with fewer connections. I haven't tried pipelining out, but will try different settings and see.
]]>user_pref("network.http.max-connections", 48); user_pref("network.http.max-connections-per-server", 16); user_pref("network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-proxy", 16); user_pref("network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-server", 8);
You do know you are DOS'ing every webserver now? 16 connections per server is not a good thing; and will only make webmasters limit this number serverside.
]]>There are some performance tweaks in there for "dialup" users, but for me, I added the following to my "user.js" file.
user_pref("browser.cache.memory.capacity", 65536);
user_pref("content.interrupt.parsing", true);
user_pref("content.max.tokenizing.time", 2250000);
user_pref("content.notify.interval", 750000);
user_pref("content.notify.ontimer", true);
user_pref("content.switch.threshold", 750000);
user_pref("network.http.max-connections", 48);
user_pref("network.http.max-connections-per-server", 16);
user_pref("network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-proxy", 16);
user_pref("network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-server", 8);
user_pref("nglayout.initialpaint.delay", 0);
I haven't added the "pipelining" settings yet, but will test them out later.
]]>