[Shotwell] shotwell with 100k pics: somewhere between quite fast and too slow

[oliver]

Hello Adam,

thanks for adding the 100k pics issue as ticket.

I may try also with sysprof later;
I did not used that tool so far.

So I will stay with gprof at least for a while,
which I already used, even it's a while ago.


Recompiling the libraries also for debugging/profiling
is the effort I try to avoid, as far as possible.


I already started debugging, but it seems that shotwell
is hanging, when compiled for profiling/debugging .

But no, it just finished while I write this mail.

So it just needs much time...
Just starting and closing took 14 minutes!


I will present my results in a seperate mail soon.


Ciao,
   Oliver




On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 09:45:39AM +0200, Adam Dingle wrote:
> Oliver,
> 
> thanks for being brave enough to try Shotwell with 100K photos and
> for reporting performance numbers in your previous email.  As you've
> pointed out, Shotwell doesn't yet scale nicely to libraries of this
> size.  In most of our testing at Yorba we haven't gone much beyond
> 10K photos, though we've certainly had reports of individual users
> with 30K or more.  You're the first user I know of to try 100K.  :)
> 
> And yes, we should make Shotwell more scalable to larger libraries.
> I've created a ticket to track progress on this:
> 
> http://redmine.yorba.org/issues/3980
> 
> For profiling, I highly recomend sysprof:
> 
> http://sysprof.com/
> http://live.gnome.org/Sysprof
> 
> The huge advantage of sysprof over other profilers (such as gprof)
> is that you don't need a special profiling build of your program and
> that your program runs at normal speed.  You will need to build with
> debug symbols, however, and you should also install debug symbols
> for glib, libc and GTK.  We've used sysprof for all our performance
> optimization work in Shotwell so far.
> 
> To build Shotwell with debug symbols, run 'configure --debug' before
> you run make.
> 
> adam
> 
> On 08/13/2011 01:57 PM, Andreas Brauchli wrote:
> >hi oliver
> >
> >what you want is probably not a debug version but a
> >profilable version. btw, it looks like the debug flag (-g) is passed by
> >default - at least if the packager didn't turn it off.
> >
> >for profiling you can use gprof to do the job by passing -X -pg to valac
> >(VALAFLAGS in Makefile)
> >
> >however if you're not comfortable with c programming i would not advise
> >you to do so.. not that you could break much but it could be
> >frustrating ;) at least you'd need to read up on how to use gprof
> >
> >cheers and best of luck
> >andreas
> >
> >On Sam, 2011-08-13 at 13:33 +0200, oliver wrote:
> >>If it is possible to create a gdb-/debugging-version
> >>of shotwell, and if this is easy by just adding
> >>a switch to one makefile, I could try the same
> >>procedure again, so that the bottleneck maybe
> >>can be identified.
> >>
> >>Is there an easy way for this?
> >>
> >>How would I make a debugging version from shotwell?
> >>
> >>(Or are those issues already addressed by the shotwell team?
> >>  Or is being able to handle about 100k pics not in the focus
> >>  of the shotwell team?)
> >>
> >>
> >>Ciao,
> >>    Oliver
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>Shotwell mailing list
> >>Shotwell at lists.yorba.org
> >>http://lists.yorba.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/shotwell
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Shotwell mailing list
> >Shotwell at lists.yorba.org
> >http://lists.yorba.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/shotwell
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Shotwell mailing list
> Shotwell at lists.yorba.org
> http://lists.yorba.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/shotwell