Joe, On Friday 30 March 2007 11:56, Joe Shaw wrote: > Hi Randall, > > Sorry for the delay. It's been a very busy week in the Cambridge > office, and I've been pretty overwhelmed by the feedback on the > thread so far. (49 messages!)
No problem. Better busy than bored! > On 3/29/07, Randall R Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thursday 29 March 2007 11:20, Joe Shaw wrote: > > > ... I could rattle > > > off a long list of bug fixes and go into technical detail about > > > them ... > > > > I'm still interested in knowing if you use the file modification > > daemon to minimize the amount of file scanning Beagle performs. And > > if not, why not? Could it be incorporated? > > Beagle uses inotify for this -- in fact, inotify was basically > written *for* Beagle with its use cases in mind. inotify is a kernel > service, so you actually don't need a separate daemon to use it. OK. The whole point was whether or not it had to perform user-level polling, which the old FAM (File Alteration Monitory -- note: I had the name wrong) used to do. > For noticing file changes and such, Beagle depends heavily on > inotify. We still have to crawl files when the Beagle daemon starts > up though, ... I think this is a problem worth addressing: Surely there's some way to minimize the cost upon start-up? It's probably why some people (those whose computers don't run 24/7) experience Beagle as so intrusive. > ... to set up inotify watches on all the directories it pays > attention to and to notice and index any changes that may have > happened while Beagle wasn't running. Thanks for the explanation. > Joe Randall Schulz -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
