16 ms·
Show HN: JavaScript Cache Size Measurement
- foota 10y agoI get an error trying to visit the site on ssl on win 10 chrome: "This site can’t provide a secure connection fromwhenceitca.me sent an invalid response. Try running Windows Network Diagnostics. ERR_SSL_PROTOCOL_ERROR" Edit: not ssl works, so go to http://www.fromwhenceitca.me/cache_size/cache_size.html http://www.fromwhenceitca.me/cache_size/cache_size.html
- sjilo 10y agoGot the same on Android Chrome. E: Obviously without the Windows Network Diagnostics part
- foota 10y agoYou'd know it was really borked if you also got the windows diagnostic bit.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- shakna 10y agoLooks like they've fixed it now. Running behind a Cloudflare SSL Certificate, valid from 11AM December 11, 2016 GMT (today), expires in a year.
- awirth 10y agoLets just say I had some infra problems... I think everything should be better now?
- foota 10y agoLooks good! You might consider leaving padding between rows so that the table doesn't adjust when adding the red, it's a bit annoying as is.
- robertelder 10y ago$nslookup www.fromwhenceitca.me Server: 192.168.0.1 Address: 192.168.0.1#53 server can't find www.fromwhenceitca.me: SERVFAIL $ dig www.fromwhenceitca.me ; <<>> DiG 9.10.3-P4-Ubuntu <<>> www.fromwhenceitca.me ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: SERVFAIL, id: 23762 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1 ;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION: ; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 512 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;www.fromwhenceitca.me. IN A ;; Query time: 209 msec ;; SERVER: 192.168.0.1#53(192.168.0.1) ;; WHEN: Sat Dec 10 20:37:22 EST 2016 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 50 From Waterloo Canada
- shakna 10y agoI'd try flushing your DNS, as the whois host points to a IP in Cloudflare's range.
- shakna 10y agoFor those hitting errors, the code is on GitHub [0] And here's my own results: [1] EDIT: I've also mirrored the repo, and turned it into a site using GitLab CI: [2] [0] https://github.com/allanlw/cache_size https://github.com/allanlw/cache_size [1] http://i.imgur.com/LKIvyCt.png http://i.imgur.com/LKIvyCt.png [2] http://shakna-israel.gitlab.io/cache_size/cache_size.html http://shakna-israel.gitlab.io/cache_size/cache_size.html
- awirth 10y agoThank you! My VPS got overloaded and I put it behind a CDN but I don't know where the DNS SERVFAILs came from.
- shakna 10y agoNo idea. Putting stuff on HN is a great way to watch it all break. Happy to help.
- awirth 10y agoBefore my VPS folded it was mostly bot traffic, which I hadn't been expecting. Evidently many follow the HN RSS feeds and hit new posts (repeatedly..) when they show up.
- robertelder 10y agoI've also noticed something in my logs that is stupidly requesting these 'apple-touch.png' icons over and over thousands of times. It seems to discover links from HN. Even if you create a file with that name, it will just keep requesting it over and over.
- shakna 10y agoiOS seems to be the only thing that uses that particular favicon. Lots of iPhone users? Or all from the same address? Cos that'd be odd.
- feifan 10y agoResults on a 15" Touchbar MBP [0] Curious about why there's a big jump from 4MB to 8MB — I know my L3 cache size is 8M [1] [0] http://imgur.com/a/8QNKO http://imgur.com/a/8QNKO [1] http://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/specs/ http://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/specs/
- mbell 10y agoI have the same effect on my machine. My guess is that since the L3 cache is shared between cores space used by processes running on other cores is causing a bit of 'blurring' of the performance on the boundary based on how much will data will fit.
- awirth 10y agoI think it's this too. The L3 cache seems to be consistently harder to measure than the L1 or L2 caches. I suspect it's just noise from other cores, but I have no strong evidence to support that.
- lgeek 10y agoI can see some pretty strong effects (and false positives) from what seem to be TLB misses. On my system, on Firefox, the L2 size is not detected correctly if transparent huge pages are enabled, but on Chromium it is. I'd like to take a closer at what's going on, but the tooling for performance-related debugging in browsers seem to be more or less missing. I've opened a pull request for some fixes to the C implementation though.
- awirth 10y agoThanks for the PR! It's certainly possible that there are some TLB issues with transparent huge pages that mess up the results. I've had a terrible time debugging the performance across different machines, browsers and OSes, and there seem to be an uncountable number of things that can go wrong, especially with the JITs in play. I'll try to track this one down later today, but I can't make any promises.