The time I was talking about was the time to quit the image without
saving. This time seems to be dependent on the size of the image. For
example, a 100MB image quits almost immediately, but a couple GB one
takes 5 or so seconds and my 7GB one was taking ~15 seconds.
John Brant
On 10/14/2016 05:34 PM, David T. Lewis wrote:
Hi,
Let's measure where the time is going before we fix it. I have saved V3 images
of that size and more, and it takes a very long time to write the image file
independent of any GC or finalization actions that need to happen. We should
measure this on a large Spur image save, but I suspect that the dominant factor
will turn out to be the time that it takes to flush all those gigabytes out
to storage. Garbage collection and finalization actions might be just round-off
error.
Dave
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 08:29:13AM -0700, Eliot Miranda wrote:
Hi Both,
let me try again :-/
On Oct 8, 2016, at 10:49 AM, Tudor Girba <tu...@tudorgirba.com> wrote:
Nice!
I put Eliot in CC :).
@Eliot: John was playing with some large images and I asked him if he could
save/load to see what happens. The report is below. Nice job :).
Doru
On Oct 8, 2016, at 7:48 PM, John Brant <br...@refactoryworkers.com> wrote:
I loaded my model (6.8GiB on linux), saved the image (7.2GB), and started the
image. It all worked. It took a few minutes to load the image, but it worked.
It takes ~15 seconds to quit an image that large. I'm not sure what quit is
doing, but it appears to be dependent on the image size.
Regrettably the squeak vm does a full gc on snapshot, and then, unavoidably, it
does a scan of all contexts in the heap, changing any with machine code pcs to
have bytecode pcs so that the image can be restarted on a different
version/platform. It then writes the heap segments to the file.
I guess the scan could be folded into the gc. This is a long time to wait!
The gc makes sense only as a way of voiding new space; image loading is
simplified only having to load old space segments. It does /not/ make sense
semantically because and finalization actions it triggers cannot be responded
to until after the snapshot.
Instead, it makes much more sense for the image to invoke a full gc immediately
prior to snapshot, and drain the finalization queue (something I guess will
happen implicitly due to finalization process priority). This means that
expected finalization activities such as flushing and closing output files will
actually take place. The existing architecture effectively throws these
actions away.
Both squeak and pharo communities could do well to discuss this and agree on an
approach.
John Brant
--
www.tudorgirba.com
www.feenk.com
"Every thing has its own flow."
