Rodney Lorrimar wrote: > On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 02:22:44AM +0000, Simos Xenitellis wrote: > >> Bastien Nocera wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 2008-03-17 at 00:56 +0000, Simos Xenitellis wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 11:25 PM, Bastien Nocera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Sun, 2008-03-16 at 14:02 +0000, Simos Xenitellis wrote: >>>>> <snip> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> That is a saving of at least 3M in memory. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> > The stripping of "unneeded" messages is good, and should happen at the >>>>> > package generation level (not in GNOME, or when creating tarballs). >>>>> >>>>> You talk about memory savings, but do calculations based on file sizes. >>>>> That's doesn't work. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Aren't mo files mapped to memory? >>>> >>>> >>> Yes, they're mapped. That doesn't result in actual memory usage. The >>> kernel will make sure they're only read into memory as needed. >>> >>> >> Is there a tool that shows which pages are in memory and which are in swap? >> I do not know of such a tool, so I would expect the worst case scenario >> of all pages being in memory. >> > > On Linux, exmap can tell you this. It gives two figures, "effective > resident" and "effective mapped". It counts each 4k page which is > loaded. You can see the .mo files which are mapped into memory, how > many pages are mapped, and which processes map the file. Unfortunately > the website has gone offline, and that is the only place I know which > has the documentation (have e-mailed the author about it). There are 2 > user interfaces: > > http://www.berthels.co.uk/exmap > http://projects.o-hand.com/exmap-console > > For example, I have an Ubuntu 7.10 desktop with a few programs running > (a couple standard applets, nautilus, gimp, epiphany, gcalctool) and > LANG=pl_PL.UTF-8. exmap-console and gnumeric tell me the mapped memory > usage of all .mo files is 1584kb. > I tried out exmap-console. There are there columns with numbers for the MO files, labeled "sole", "file" and "file-VM". "sole" is apparently the memory in multiples of page size, that can fit the file. I do not know what is the difference between "file" and "file-VM". If "file" is the amount of memory that is being used currently, then,
* in Ubuntu 7.10 * with en_GB.UTF-8 (fixed) * with gimp, iagno, nautilus open (Firefox, Thunderbird, OOCalc do not appear as .mo files) * installation deviates from typical (for example, no accessibility enabled). the number that OOCalc gives is 2,420,736 bytes. While, * in Ubuntu 8.04 (alpha6), i.e. stripped MO files, * with en_GB.UTF-8 * with gimp, iagno, nautilus open * standard installation, (=accessibility enabled) the number that OOCalc gives is 1,646,592. The difference is over 700KB of memory. For reference, for Greek, the memory use is about 5.8MB (Ubuntu 8.04Alpha). > >> The messages in a .mo file are in no specific order, so I would expect >> that within a page there should be at least a message an application >> requires at any time. >> >> The important part, however, is that when a translation is exactly the >> same with the original message, then this entry is not required to exist >> in the MO file; the running application can find the original message >> withing the application itself. By stripping the MO file of such >> messages, the file size reduces and most probably there is reduction in >> memory use (between 0 to .mo file size). >> >> Is this description clear? Do you think that the savings would be so >> minimal that one would not need to bother working on this? >> > > Could be... what percentage of translations in en_GB do you think are > duplicates? Was it 86% (100% - 2MB/14MB) ? > This amount of translation strings are not required for the correct representation of en_GB (pending the issue that Danilo raised). Simos _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
