Re: Proposed module: tracker
- From: Jamie McCracken <jamiemcc blueyonder co uk>
- To: "Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro" <gjc inescporto pt>
- Cc: Desktop Devel <desktop-devel-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: Proposed module: tracker
- Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 13:03:12 +0000
Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote:
Having tried tracker 0.5.3 for a couple of days what I have to say is:
1. it uses little memory;
2. it requires _a lot_ of CPU power.
Basically point 2 is a killer. No one is going to want to run this
except in servers. Keeping the CPU busy almost 100% of the time is not
nice: consumes more power, gets my computer fan running faster and more
loudly.. I can't even begin to imagine what a nightmare it will be for
point 2 is scheduled at nice +19 (same with Ionice +7) so it only uses
more cpu if its idle. And cpu is only used if indexing (first run only
takes a long time). After first run, cpu usage is generally negligible
so its a one time hit.
Also try running a game or something cpu heavy while tracker is indexing
and you will see tracker cpu drop to ~1%
I do believe this is the right way to schedule a service (via the OS) if
not we can add periodic sleep periods but am not convinced we can do it
better than the OS. I mean I can easily make it consume less than 50% of
cpu by sleeping half the time but that will slow indexing proportionally.
Im open to people's thoughts on this... (IE is 100% cpu usage at
nice+19/ionice+7 during indexing really a problem?)
(I note locate pretty much uses similar 100% cpu while indexing too)
Maybe this kind of indexing technology, be it tracker or beagle, is
simply not something that we want to shove into users' desktops. Either
this gets much much better optimised in the future, or we have to wait
for more powerful hardware. In any case, I'm -1 for including tracker
in GNOME 2.18; let's wait and see how this evolves at GNOME 2.20 time.
Im sure it will be better for 2.20. Release team can withdraw tracker
from 2.18 proposed modules with my permission.
Mr Jamie McCracken
] [Thread Prev