Re: [e-users] exebuf preload?
On Mon, 6 Feb 2006 00:38:02 -0500 Dusik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled: > Raster, > > As I understand what you're saying is all the disk IO happens after > the exebuf window pops up. I'm seeing all the disk IO *before* the > window pops up, after I press ALT+ESC. no it happ4ens AT the time exebuf pops up - exebuf has created the window and objects and is scanning the disk for executables, but the display has not been flushed to x and processed so u wont SEE it yet. > BTW, if most people aren't having this issue, I don't mind dropping > it. It doesn't bother me *that* much. But thanks for your help :) the mainr eason you are suffering from this is a fragmented/slow disk. it's the IO i put my dollar on as the killer. on my boxes it's almsot instantaneous - even first time. > -Dusik > -- - Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" -- The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler)[EMAIL PROTECTED] 裸好多 Tokyo, Japan (東京 日本) --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 ___ enlightenment-users mailing list enlightenment-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-users
Re: [e-users] exebuf preload?
On Mon, 6 Feb 2006 00:38:02 -0500 Dusik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Raster, > > As I understand what you're saying is all the disk IO happens after > the exebuf window pops up. I'm seeing all the disk IO *before* the > window pops up, after I press ALT+ESC. > > BTW, if most people aren't having this issue, I don't mind dropping > it. It doesn't bother me *that* much. But thanks for your help :) > > -Dusik He meant that he just changed it to be in the background, a few hours ago(: Jesse --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 ___ enlightenment-users mailing list enlightenment-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-users
Re: [e-users] exebuf preload?
Raster, As I understand what you're saying is all the disk IO happens after the exebuf window pops up. I'm seeing all the disk IO *before* the window pops up, after I press ALT+ESC. BTW, if most people aren't having this issue, I don't mind dropping it. It doesn't bother me *that* much. But thanks for your help :) -Dusik --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid3432&bid#0486&dat1642 ___ enlightenment-users mailing list enlightenment-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-users
Re: [e-users] exebuf preload?
On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 22:22:06 -0500 Dusik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled: > On 05/02/06, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 21:19:31 -0500 Dusik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled: > > > > > > > > My tab-tab gives me 2800 possibilities on Gentoo on a reiserfs 3 disk > > > (it's supposed to be a fast SATA disk too). Bash completion takes > > > under a second, while exebuf really takes several seconds, feels like > > > maybe 8-10 sec the first time I run it. After that both bash an > > > exebuf appear to be using cached data and appear instantaneously. > > > > it could be that bash doesnt stat() the files until they match the string > > and then it weeds out non-executables. ecore_file stats when it lists and > > weeds out at that time so it occurs all the expense at once. > > I was comparing to bash completion on an empty string, which means it > couldn't have checked if it's an executable when it listed, since it > listed all. By the time it says "Display all 2800 possibilities? (y > or n)" it has already weeded out all non-execs, and it's before that > message appears that I can hear the hard drive going, not after. > > My computer generally feels fast, including working with files, and > exebuf pops up instantaneously unless I haven't used it for a few > hours, in which case it hits the hard drive for a few seconds before > giving me the input dialog. there is not a lot i can do. exebuf does what bash does - it has to list all dirs in $PATH and then list contents, weed out non-executable files and then it finally has enough data to do completions. i moved the list to happen in a "background thread" (idler) but this simply means exebuf wont have all executables listed until it has threashed your disk looking for all of them. it will remain interactive and work- it will simply have a partial list until its fully finished. once cached the scan will be faster - but really - beyond you improving your disk IO (better fs type, better disk, defragment the disk by tarring it up, re-formattign the writing it all back out so its all sequential reads to list directory contents) there is nothing we can do without starting to do evil thgnis like cache files containing all files in $PATH and code that maintains such cache files based on soruce contents etc. -- - Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" -- The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler)[EMAIL PROTECTED] 裸好多 Tokyo, Japan (東京 日本) --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 ___ enlightenment-users mailing list enlightenment-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-users
Re: [e-users] exebuf preload?
On 05/02/06, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 21:19:31 -0500 Dusik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled: > > > > > My tab-tab gives me 2800 possibilities on Gentoo on a reiserfs 3 disk > > (it's supposed to be a fast SATA disk too). Bash completion takes > > under a second, while exebuf really takes several seconds, feels like > > maybe 8-10 sec the first time I run it. After that both bash an > > exebuf appear to be using cached data and appear instantaneously. > > it could be that bash doesnt stat() the files until they match the string and > then it weeds out non-executables. ecore_file stats when it lists and weeds > out > at that time so it occurs all the expense at once. I was comparing to bash completion on an empty string, which means it couldn't have checked if it's an executable when it listed, since it listed all. By the time it says "Display all 2800 possibilities? (y or n)" it has already weeded out all non-execs, and it's before that message appears that I can hear the hard drive going, not after. My computer generally feels fast, including working with files, and exebuf pops up instantaneously unless I haven't used it for a few hours, in which case it hits the hard drive for a few seconds before giving me the input dialog. -Dusik --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid3432&bid#0486&dat1642 ___ enlightenment-users mailing list enlightenment-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-users
Re: [e-users] exebuf preload?
On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 21:19:31 -0500 Dusik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled: > On 05/02/06, Andreas Volz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Display all 3225 possibilities? (y or n) > > > > Are 3225 executables very much? I tested it on a Debian System with > > 1049 possibilities and it was _much_ faster (this system/harddisk > > is also much slower). So perhaps it's usefull to know the distribution > > of all the people with the same problem. > > My tab-tab gives me 2800 possibilities on Gentoo on a reiserfs 3 disk > (it's supposed to be a fast SATA disk too). Bash completion takes > under a second, while exebuf really takes several seconds, feels like > maybe 8-10 sec the first time I run it. After that both bash an > exebuf appear to be using cached data and appear instantaneously. it could be that bash doesnt stat() the files until they match the string and then it weeds out non-executables. ecore_file stats when it lists and weeds out at that time so it occurs all the expense at once. > > --- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files > for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes > searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd___ > enlightenment-users mailing list > enlightenment-users@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-users > -- - Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" -- The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler)[EMAIL PROTECTED] 裸好多 Tokyo, Japan (東京 日本) --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 ___ enlightenment-users mailing list enlightenment-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-users
Re: [e-users] exebuf preload?
On 05/02/06, Andreas Volz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Display all 3225 possibilities? (y or n) > > Are 3225 executables very much? I tested it on a Debian System with > 1049 possibilities and it was _much_ faster (this system/harddisk > is also much slower). So perhaps it's usefull to know the distribution > of all the people with the same problem. My tab-tab gives me 2800 possibilities on Gentoo on a reiserfs 3 disk (it's supposed to be a fast SATA disk too). Bash completion takes under a second, while exebuf really takes several seconds, feels like maybe 8-10 sec the first time I run it. After that both bash an exebuf appear to be using cached data and appear instantaneously. --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid3432&bid#0486&dat1642 ___ enlightenment-users mailing list enlightenment-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-users
Re: [e-users] exebuf preload?
On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 17:29:37 -0500 Ben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled: > On 2/5/06, Andreas Volz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Ok, I'll try this next weekend if no solution was found until then. > > Perhaps it's an interesting information that it takes nearly the same > > time if I press TAB-TAB in an empty bash command and the system > > collects all executables. It's interesting that after I did this the > > exebuf comes up very fast. > > > > > [TAB-TAB] > > Display all 3225 possibilities? (y or n) > > > > Are 3225 executables very much? I tested it on a Debian System with > > 1049 possibilities and it was _much_ faster (this system/harddisk > > is also much slower). So perhaps it's usefull to know the distribution > > of all the people with the same problem. > > > > regards > > Andreas > > > > I don't know that the number would be too many - My system offers 2640 > possibilities, but only takes 1-2 seconds to tell me that, doesn't > seem like the extra 600 entries should add all the additional time you > are encountering. Like Raster mentioned before, something with your > path or disk (fragmentation?) could be fubar'ed. indeed. exebuf is doing pretty much just what bash/zsh/etc. woudl do when u do tab completion. no different really in principle. in order to find mathces it will at the MINIMUM have to list all executables. exebuf does this as a one-off when it first comes up so it's in memory while exebuf is up. it's really a matter i thnk of your fs being pretty screwed. your disk is slow - and/or fs is slow and/or your disk is so fragmented that in order to list all these files and simple stat them to check if they are executable or a directory etc. does so much disk churning that it takes a significant amount of time to do. > > --- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files > for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes > searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd___ > enlightenment-users mailing list > enlightenment-users@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-users > -- - Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" -- The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler)[EMAIL PROTECTED] 裸好多 Tokyo, Japan (東京 日本) --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 ___ enlightenment-users mailing list enlightenment-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-users
Re: [e-users] e17 calendar module - minor bug?
On Sat, 2006-02-04 at 13:58 -0600, Laurence Vanek wrote: > I note that ~5 seconds after this module is enabled the year changes > from "2006" to "106". If I advance a month then back to Feb the correct > year shows properly, only to revert to "106" again after ~5 seconds. > > Perhaps this is only an oddity with my system. Im running udated Fedora > Core 4. Nope, not just your system... I will look into as soon as I get me a new monitor -- mines died... Nasa > > > > --- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files > for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes > searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 > ___ > enlightenment-users mailing list > enlightenment-users@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-users --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 ___ enlightenment-users mailing list enlightenment-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-users
Re: [e-users] exebuf preload?
On 2/5/06, Andreas Volz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ok, I'll try this next weekend if no solution was found until then. > Perhaps it's an interesting information that it takes nearly the same > time if I press TAB-TAB in an empty bash command and the system > collects all executables. It's interesting that after I did this the > exebuf comes up very fast. > > > [TAB-TAB] > Display all 3225 possibilities? (y or n) > > Are 3225 executables very much? I tested it on a Debian System with > 1049 possibilities and it was _much_ faster (this system/harddisk > is also much slower). So perhaps it's usefull to know the distribution > of all the people with the same problem. > > regards > Andreas > I don't know that the number would be too many - My system offers 2640 possibilities, but only takes 1-2 seconds to tell me that, doesn't seem like the extra 600 entries should add all the additional time you are encountering. Like Raster mentioned before, something with your path or disk (fragmentation?) could be fubar'ed. --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid3432&bid#0486&dat1642 ___ enlightenment-users mailing list enlightenment-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-users
RE: [e-users] Re: [E-devel] Continuing... Anonymous CVS & Servers - YOU CAN HELP!
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Morten Nilsen Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 9:44 PM To: eusers Subject: Re: [e-users] Re: [E-devel] Continuing... Anonymous CVS & Servers - > Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote: >> I would say give them a ping and see - there's more than one thing in the >> pipe >> atm. i'm aqctually TRYING to write code for once - but it seems that the >> moment >> i try - people get antsy that i dont do my email! :) > > I know the solution; cloning! > > one raster to code, and one taster to answer email.. brillant! One Raster to code them all, One Raster to mind them. One Raster to Enlighten them all And in the darkness find them. --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid3432&bid#0486&dat1642 ___ enlightenment-users mailing list enlightenment-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-users
Re: [e-users] exebuf preload?
Am Sun, 5 Feb 2006 11:09:51 +0900 schrieb Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman): > > I was sure I tested it before and it failed. But now it works. Sorry > > for troubling you. Here is the dump file. I hope you could use it: > > > > http://brachttal.net/tmp/exebuf_dump > > so basically it looks like your system is spending most of its time > inside libc (you have no debug symbols so we cant say any mroe than > that) and the kernel. as i mailed in another mail - try modifying the > source (see my other mails in thsi thread) and put in printf's with > timestamps to idnetify the areas of the show routine thata re using > up all the wall-clock time. Ok, I'll try this next weekend if no solution was found until then. Perhaps it's an interesting information that it takes nearly the same time if I press TAB-TAB in an empty bash command and the system collects all executables. It's interesting that after I did this the exebuf comes up very fast. > [TAB-TAB] Display all 3225 possibilities? (y or n) Are 3225 executables very much? I tested it on a Debian System with 1049 possibilities and it was _much_ faster (this system/harddisk is also much slower). So perhaps it's usefull to know the distribution of all the people with the same problem. regards Andreas --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 ___ enlightenment-users mailing list enlightenment-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-users
