Beagle badness

[Jamie McCracken]

Jan Claeys wrote:
> Op vrijdag 10-11-2006 om 14:48 uur [tijdzone +0000], schreef Jamie
> McCracken:
>> Evandro Fernandes Giovanini wrote:
>>> Currently, Tracker has advantages compared to Beagle, mainly smaller
>>> memory footprint. 
>> it also has a fixed capped deterministic memory usage so it wont eat all 
>> your resources over time and uses considerably less cpu and battery 
>> power to index stuff. It also sleeps without peridically waking up so is 
>> very friendly for notebooks
> [...]
>> Yet tracker was built from the ground up to be stable, memory efficient 
>> and very robust and has been proposed for Gnome whilst Beagle devs still 
>> have big problems with stablity and memory usage and they admit 
>> themselves its no where near ready.
>>
>> However the best way to prove tracker is more stable is to get George 
>> Farris to run it and see if it has any issues compared to Beagle.
> 
> I've installed the tracker packages for edgy about 2 or 3 hours ago and
> just now tracker-extract was trying to use 1 GiB of memory (not fun on a
> PC with 512 MiB of RAM).  I have also seen several 'htmless' crashes and
> at least one 'tracker-extract' crash.
> 
> So, I seems like 'tracker' isn't better than 'beagle' at the moment...
> 

crashes in tracker-extract are harmless and do not bring down the 
tracker daemon

dodgy file formats can cause these crashes as can errors in the 
underlying libs

As for the 1GB ram can you let me know what file was causing that?

tracker itself does not consume significant memory but the underlying 
libs like gstreamer might if they are seeking into big video files. The 
tracker-extract is spawned for each file so any memory used is quickly 
recovered. We might put an upper limit on file sizes that are extracted 
if thats the case.

-- 
Mr Jamie McCracken
http://jamiemcc.livejournal.com/