From: Don A. <don...@co...> - 2007-08-05 04:39:26
|
Can you send me the XML file so I can try some profiling on the date here? Don On Sat, 2007-08-04 at 19:02 -0500, Joel Parker wrote: > I did some more tests. > > Again, the two systems (named from my first experience): > "fast" - 2.0 GHz Pentium M, 512 MiB RAM, Windows XP, Gramps 2.2.7 > "slow" - 3.06 GHz Pentium 4, 1 GiB RAM, Ubuntu 7.04, Gramps 2.2.8 > > The file is a Gramps XML file with approx. 700 names. There is a linked > media folder with 67 images of various types totaling 55.1 MiB (several > high-resolution scans). > > First, I made identical copies of the base .gramps XML file on each > computer and deleted the media folder, so that all the media links would > be broken. > > In this case, both systems took about the same amount of time to load > the file (about 2 minutes). > > Second, on the "slow" system, I copied back the media folder and > corrected all the links, so they were all working links to actual media > files, then tried opening the .gramps file again. > > In this case, the file load times jumped up into the 15-minute range and > even higher (I killed it after a while). This whole time the CPU was > going at 100%, and the memory usage was creeping higher and higher, > until by the time I killed it, all of my system memory and half of my > 1GB swap file was used. > > I saw the same behavior on the "fast" system as well. This time it was a > little different, as Gramps loaded into Person view mode in a normal > amount of time, but went crazy with load time and memory when I pressed > the Media button. > > Again, to summarize, with no media folder present, both systems loaded > the XML file in a couple minutes. With the media folder present and when > opening into Media view, the load times and memory usage went through > the roof. > > What does Gramps try to do with the media during load when it's going > into Media view mode? Does it try to thumbnail all the pictures or load > them into memory or something? > > - Joel > > On Sat, 2007-08-04 at 09:16 -0600, Don Allingham wrote: > > Something odd is definitely going on here. There was no upgrade between > > 2.2.7 and 2.2.8, so that should not be a problem. > > > > My guess is the problem is the amount of RAM on the systems. When you > > use the .gramps format, GRAMPS must keep *all* data in memory at once. > > So, if you have more data than you have available RAM, the system will > > dramatically slow down. > > > > Does the slow machine have less RAM than the faster machine? > > > > Don > > > > On Sat, 2007-08-04 at 16:38 +0200, bm...@ca... wrote: > > > Quoting Joel Parker <jj...@ms...>: > > > > > > > My wife and I are working with a database in Gramps XML format, so we > > > > can share the file without the grdb hassles. > > > > > > > > The database has about 700 individuals, along with maybe 50 media links > > > > (some of which are broken, if that matters). I'm using 2.2.8 on Ubuntu, > > > > and she's using 2.2.7 on Windows XP. > > > > > > You should use the same version. 2.2.8 corrects not saved privacy settings on > > > save to xml > > > > > > > On Windows with 2.2.7, she's getting load times of maybe 90 seconds to > > > > open the file (that's after the app has loaded, I do File->Open from > > > > there). On Ubuntu with 2.2.8, I get load times of a full 11 minutes at > > > > 100% CPU, sometimes ending in a "This file is either corrupt or not a > > > > Gramps file" message (and sometimes completing successfully). > > > > > > I have seen this with .grdb file, but never with .gramps file. > > > If you open an empty grdb file, and do import of xml file, is it faster? > > > > > > Is this 11 min load times always? > > > > > > I do not remember, but perhaps there is a database upgrade from 2.2.7 > > > to 2.2.8, > > > you should start gramps from the command line and see if some special upgrade > > > messages pass by. I would however expect database upgrade issues not to play a > > > role when working with xml files.... > > > > > > > > > > > My computer is a 3GHz P4, while hers is a ~1.8GHz Pentium M, but I doubt > > > > that would make a difference that large. > > > > > > hmm, you said you had the slow load times, so the 3GHz would be slower > > > than the > > > 1.8, no ? Anyway, there should be no difference between the two. > > > > > > > > > > > Any idea what's causing this discrepancy? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Joel Parker > > > > > > > > > > Benny > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. > > > Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. > > > Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. > > > Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Gramps-users mailing list > > > Gra...@li... > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users |