+------ Patrick Vervoorn wrote (Wed, 26-Nov-2008, 10:44 +0100): | On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, Charles Seeger wrote: | | > Perhaps I'm just lucky with the groups that I read and what our | > NNTP (INN) server dispenses. The most annoying problem that I see | > is the thread selector sometimes dropping to the end of a group after | > reading a thread in the middle. It seems to happen repeatedly in | > a given group during the same reading session, so I suspect is has | > something to do with the set of articles, e.g. broken references or | > some such. ISTR that Wayne had some fixes in the later test releases, | > but haven't been annoyed enough to hunt it down. | | I've noticed what you mentioned before, but didn't find it a big nuisance. | A simple press of Ctrl-r when you're at the end, puts you back at the | beginning. I'll give that a try, but I'm wanting to go back to the middle, where I had hit tab to read a selected thread, rather than to the beginning. Matt Ackeret suggested this might be a feature rather than a bug, in which case trn may still have a valid index to the previous page in the thread selector. If so, there may be a command to make use of that. Until now I've been remembering the percentage displayed at the bottom of the thread selector and using "<" to move back to that vicinity. All things considered, this certainly is a minor nuisance compared to memory leaks, crashes and non-ascii character support. | As for my memory-related problems, I do not encounter these when I read | 'regular' text-groups, even when they're pretty big and/or have a rather | big retention. I do encounter this when skimming through binary groups, | with up to several hundred k's of article-overviews being pulled in. Since I don't read any binary groups, that probably is the difference. But, some text groups that I do read have 500-1000 articles per day, and I sometimes go several days to a week before accessing their overviews. But I don't think I have ever reached 50k of actual new articles (as opposed to article numbers). I don't run the server, so I'm not up on the retention periods, but 100k spooled articles may be an upper bound for the text groups that I'm reading/skimming. | So it's possible the usenet-flow wasn't available in april 2001 when | test76 was released, so it's never been tested with these amounts of | articles...? I haven't looked at the relevant statistics, but I suspect that Usenet traffic hasn't increased all that much since the turn of the millennia, certainly not compared to other Internet traffic. OTOH, the binary groups may differ significantly. Still, increased traffic (or greater retention--bigger disks!) might be enough to hit one threshold or another. Best, Chuck
