Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Move SHA1 to web worker pool #36

Closed
feross opened this issue Mar 4, 2014 · 6 comments
Closed

Move SHA1 to web worker pool #36

feross opened this issue Mar 4, 2014 · 6 comments

Comments

@feross
Copy link
Member

@feross feross commented Mar 4, 2014

The UI currently lags (it's affecting the CSS animations) and I think it's due to SHA1 hashing happening on the main thread. Stick it in a web worker pool.

@feross feross added the enhancement label Mar 4, 2014
@feross feross removed the enhancement label May 18, 2014
@feross

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

@feross feross commented Jun 12, 2014

Irrelevant now that this module is a node.js command line app. This will definitely be an issue for webtorrent.js, though.

@feross feross closed this Jun 12, 2014
@piedshag

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@piedshag piedshag commented Mar 28, 2016

@feross would this be useful now, considering this is probably the biggest consumer of the cpu? Substack has a great module for web workers. I am not an expert on web workers but would this perhaps speed up the seeding process? Once support is added for data channels in web workers we could just use webtorrent in a worker, but at the moment this seems like the only process you could offload to the worker. What are your thoughts on this?

@feross

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

@feross feross commented Apr 5, 2016

@piedshag Yeah, this would indeed be useful. The issue is that this module needs to work in node.js and Electron environments too, so there's a bit of complexity involved in supporting Node.js which lacks Web Workers. But we can (and should) do it.

@feross feross reopened this Apr 5, 2016
@josephfrazier

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@josephfrazier josephfrazier commented Apr 6, 2016

Should we close this in favor of #235? It looks like there's more discussion/information there.

@feross

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

@feross feross commented Apr 23, 2016

Thanks

@lock

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@lock lock bot commented May 4, 2018

This thread has been automatically locked because it has not had recent activity. To discuss futher, please open a new issue.

@lock lock bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators May 4, 2018
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
3 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.