Re: New module proposal: tracker

On 29/10/09 18:20, Ruben Vermeersch wrote:
On do, 2009-10-29 at 17:21 +0000, Martyn Russell wrote:
From a devil's advocate point of view: this might just mean that it got
worse (though I doubt it). Zeeshan raises concerns and while you go to
great lengths to explain that it is different, there is nothing that
might convince him that it is actually *better*.

True, but the point is, it isn't the same contrary to popular belief ;)

Erm, wouldn't the lack of a recursive notification mechanism imply that
you have to do a directory crawl at startup to place notify watches on
each and every file?

We do this per directory not per file.

That *is* an important issue, much more than the potential of running
into the limits in, as you said, extreme cases. Hugely occupying the
hard disk when the user wants to start using his/her computer is bad.

What do you mean by hugely occupying?

So the question is: does the indexer do a full directory crawl when
starting? Because in that case, I don't want it.

Yes for now. We have considered only doing this initially but the cost for doing this (in 0.7) is cheap and the concern is more that we could miss file updates or new files.

Have you tried 0.7?

So not having recursive inotify (or something alike) can be a problem
for the indexer. Which does not say much about the data store. I think
it might be wise to consider the tracker data store and the tracker
indexer as separate components to propose, given the different issues

This has been suggested before too. I don't believe that makes sense either but then my opinion isn't the only one :)


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]