Alright, I believe this issue should be somewhat fixed in do-future branch. Please note you will need mono 2.0 to build the branch. The new behavior is as follows.
Do will update your items for 200ms every 2 minutes. This is a VERY short period of time and should not be that noticeable. It is however not strict and will allow a single item source to chew for a time if it takes too long. Still, it should be better than before. When you are on battery power, to be nicer to the system these values are changed to 600ms of updates every 10 minutes. This should prevent Do from waking your hard disks all the time. However, to improve this further, I am working on adding code to check if the disks are spun down, in which case we will do no updates until something else spins them up. I still need to deal with the edge case where a single item source takes too long to update, but there is really only so much we can do. Jason On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 13:08 -0800, John Wood wrote: > I don't believe Do indexes file contents, like Tracker or Beagle. > Just file names. > > - John > > --------------------------------- > http://johnpwood.net > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > From: MaxMC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: GNOME Do <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, November 3, 2008 2:53:23 PM > Subject: [GNOME Do] Re: Periodically high CPU usage, FileItemSource > Plugin > > > Is it just me or does Do now do the work of Beagle and Tracker as > well? > > /Mårten > > On Nov 1, 8:20 pm, Tobias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thanks for taking it seriously. It's not that big a problem, but I > > thought there might be a bug. > > > > In general, I really appreciate Do's ability to find stuff quick, > and > > not only the thirty files I'm regularly working on. So the ability > to > > maintain a big universe is, in my eyes, desirable. It's also > difficult > > to tell for me at which indexing depth the thing loses traction and > > just produces load. It's all thoroughly nested. Of course, many of > the > > actual items in my index are just numbered series of files. An > option > > to explicitly *exclude* certain paths would be nice to have. Or an > > option to just index folder names in certain paths, and not the > files > > themselves. > > > > Use case: Somewhere in the depths of my photo collection, there's a > > directory that contains all the images I've snapped at one event. > All > > my images are imported into folders whose names reflect the date of > > production, and the images themselves have the numbered filename the > > camera has given them. Currently, I can quickly navigate to the > images > > of the event by just entering the date in Do, which is really nifty, > > but the filenames themselves are not good for anything. > > > > --Tobias > > > > On Oct 31, 4:04 pm, Jason Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Whoa! Ok I know what is causing this... We will have to rethink > how we > > > handle updating child items. We probably need to defer this to a > really > > > low priority that updates MUCH less frequently than universe. I > will > > > work on that today. > > > > > I imagine the best thing to do would be to do incremental updates > to it, > > > and then every 2 or 3 hours of running, completely clear its cache > and > > > start over. That would provide the CPU spike on you every 2 or 3 > hours > > > instead of every couple minutes while not being a memory leak. It > would > > > however grow its memory slightly more for that 2 or 3 hours > period. > > > > > DBO > > > > > On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 23:21 -0700, Tobias wrote: > > > > Well, those must be all the contents of my Documents directory, > and Do > > > > does an excellent job locating stuff inside. Many of them are > pictures > > > > and audio files and most files aren't moved around a lot. > There's > > > > certainly no point in indexing them every couple of minutes, > much less > > > > full throttle. But that's not the point. Rather, I didn't ever > have > > > > this behavior. It just came up a couple of days or weeks ago. > It's > > > > like there's something hanging for a while and then giving up > with an > > > > error. So I thought there might be something that's not working > right. > > > > > > --Tobias > > > > > > On Oct 30, 12:31 am, "Alex Launi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > How many files are you indexing? I think that giant universe > size is the > > > > > problem. Are any of those folders really populated? > > > > > > > -- > > > > > --Alex Launi > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GNOME Do" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/gnome-do?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
