I then signalled the semaphores (Alt-S in the process browser and the processes went away).
Size of SHRange is now: SHRange allInstances size. 217381 (After a couple GCs). Are these things created when one views methods in the browser ? Phil On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 6:09 PM, p...@highoctane.be <p...@highoctane.be>wrote: > I had a look at the process browser and found this strange set of > processes with semaphores and style in background. > How comes? > There is no browser open even. > > See screenshot attached. > > Phil > > > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 5:10 PM, p...@highoctane.be <p...@highoctane.be>wrote: > >> Yeah, that's a tad weird. >> >> I am quite concerned about that image ballooning effect. >> >> I've got a dev image and it is now 185.515.948 >> >> I did the flush thing >> >> MCFileBasedRepository flushAllCaches. >> 3 timesRepeat: [Smalltalk garbageCollect]. >> >> and now, it is 158.740.484 >> >> SpaceTally new printSpaceAnalysis >> >> shows: >> >> Class code space # instances >> inst space percent inst average size >> Array 3712 817192 >> 31395576 19.30 38.42 >> Float 13047 1313593 >> 15763116 9.70 12.00 >> ByteString 2785 378125 >> 13078821 8.00 34.59 >> MorphExtension 3097 157557 >> 10713876 6.60 68.00 >> Bitmap 3653 1975 >> 10198648 6.30 5163.87 >> TextMethodLink 419 392396 >> 9417504 5.80 24.00 >> Point 7105 711444 >> 8537328 5.30 12.00 >> CompiledMethod 22467 82802 >> 5215856 3.20 62.99 >> SHRange 1919 217316 >> 4346320 2.70 20.00 >> Rectangle 8795 325385 >> 3904620 2.40 12.00 >> TableLayoutProperties 1169 49629 >> 3573288 2.20 72.00 >> Semaphore 949 149195 >> 2983900 1.80 20.00 >> >> A ton of MorphExtensions (which is a know problem). >> >> but also quite some TextMethodLinks, which I do not understand. >> SHRange, from styling things I guess, lots of remnants. >> >> And quite a bunch of Semaphores, too much I think. >> >> Tons of Arrays and floats. I do a lot of NeoCSV loads in the image. >> >> >> Phil >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <s...@stfx.eu>wrote: >> >>> >>> On 11 Nov 2013, at 15:51, p...@highoctane.be wrote: >>> >>> > Image size goes back to: >>> > >>> > 29.068.612 >>> > >>> > Looks like all package contents are cached in the image… >>> >>> But by a factor 3 ?? >>> >>> > Phil >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck < >>> marianop...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > Phil, what happens if you evaluate (and save after) to the big image: >>> > >>> > MCFileBasedRepository flushAllCaches. >>> > 3 timesRepeat: [Smalltalk garbageCollect]. >>> > >>> > >>> > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 8:30 AM, p...@highoctane.be < >>> p...@highoctane.be> wrote: >>> > [User.Techlab] → du -hs package-cache >>> > 5.3M package-cache >>> > >>> > Phil >>> > >>> > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <s...@stfx.eu> >>> wrote: >>> > What is the total size of the package-cache, like du -hs ? >>> > Could it be the same size of the difference in image size ? >>> > That would mean that the contents of the packages themselves is cached >>> in the image... >>> > >>> > On 11 Nov 2013, at 10:39, p...@highoctane.be wrote: >>> > >>> > > I am experiencing the following while loading my configuration. >>> > > >>> > > REPO=http://www.smalltalkhub.com/mc/philippeback/HOWebStack/main >>> > > ./pharo Pharo.image config $REPO ConfigurationOfHOWebStack >>> --install=0.4 >>> > > >>> > > Everything loads fine. >>> > > >>> > > But: >>> > > >>> > > with a package-cache/ empty, the final image is: 44.452.060 with a >>> changes file of: 10.831.877 >>> > > >>> > > with a primed package-cache (meaning, letting the mczs in place and >>> starting with a fresh image), the final image is: 29.480.912 with a changes >>> file of: 10.830.899 >>> > > >>> > > That's quite a huge difference. >>> > > >>> > > I tried again to be sure (fresh image and empty package-cache, then >>> fresh image only) and, weirdly enough, even if the difference in size was >>> the same, the sizes themselves weren't.the same... >>> > > >>> > > 44.446.152 - 10.830.899 >>> > > 29.986.284 - 10.831.543 >>> > > >>> > > Maybe that's due to a GC occurring differently between the two. >>> > > >>> > > But this gives the impression that one cannot load a base image, >>> apply a configuration, and end up with the same image twice. Weird. >>> > > >>> > > Why is this difference so large in the first place ? >>> > > >>> > > Phil >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Mariano >>> > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com >>> > >>> >>> >>> >> >
