[Bug 614918] Re: Terrible wrestool performance with very large executables
STILL active on 16.04. WTF??? Ubuntu Gnome Flashback Metacity, drag and drop a 2Gb self-extracting exe (even renamed to .ex_) and the system grinds to a halt as wrestool tries to do a completely unnecessary (and unwanted) activity. Do not read the entire file into memory just to extract an icon. A. I really don't care and B. it's an OS function which should, therefore, be lean and mean. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/614918 Title: Terrible wrestool performance with very large executables To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/icoutils/+bug/614918/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 614918] Re: Terrible wrestool performance with very large executables
Can confirm the issue on 12.10 Transferring large GOG.com install files from external hard drive to ~/Downloads. Is there a work around? I can't find it in here (and if it is in here, I apologize for skipping the comment). -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/614918 Title: Terrible wrestool performance with very large executables To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/icoutils/+bug/614918/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 614918] Re: Terrible wrestool performance with very large executables
Still happening in 13.04 (in development). I am going to try tumbler -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/614918 Title: Terrible wrestool performance with very large executables To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/icoutils/+bug/614918/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 614918] Re: Terrible wrestool performance with very large executables
This still happens in 12.10. I hope the patch is accepted. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/614918 Title: Terrible wrestool performance with very large executables To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/icoutils/+bug/614918/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 614918] Re: Terrible wrestool performance with very large executables
I created a preliminary patch that limits the amount of memory allocated and amount of file portion read (I set the limit to 10M, can be changed in wrestool/wrestool.h). ** Patch added: restrain a wrestool utility to allocate and read not more than certain amount https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/icoutils/+bug/614918/+attachment/3446618/+files/restrain_wrestool_patch.diff -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/614918 Title: Terrible wrestool performance with very large executables To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/icoutils/+bug/614918/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 614918] Re: Terrible wrestool performance with very large executables
p.s.: the patch is for iconutils version 0.30.0 -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/614918 Title: Terrible wrestool performance with very large executables To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/icoutils/+bug/614918/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 614918] Re: Terrible wrestool performance with very large executables
The attachment restrain a wrestool utility to allocate and read not more than certain amount of this bug report has been identified as being a patch. The ubuntu-reviewers team has been subscribed to the bug report so that they can review the patch. In the event that this is in fact not a patch you can resolve this situation by removing the tag 'patch' from the bug report and editing the attachment so that it is not flagged as a patch. Additionally, if you are member of the ubuntu- reviewers team please also unsubscribe the team from this bug report. [This is an automated message performed by a Launchpad user owned by Brian Murray. Please contact him regarding any issues with the action taken in this bug report.] ** Tags added: patch -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/614918 Title: Terrible wrestool performance with very large executables To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/icoutils/+bug/614918/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 614918] Re: Terrible wrestool performance with very large executables
Definitely confirmed for 12.04. Eating about 600 MB of RAM on a 1000MB system is something I would *not* call fixed. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/614918 Title: Terrible wrestool performance with very large executables To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/icoutils/+bug/614918/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 614918] Re: Terrible wrestool performance with very large executables
Also confirmed for 12.04. I found this bug trying to look through some old game CDs with large Windows exes on them. To unmount and remove the CDs from my machine I had to repeatedly kill wrestool and md5sum, which were between them hogging all resources and preventing umount from working. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/614918 Title: Terrible wrestool performance with very large executables To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/icoutils/+bug/614918/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 614918] Re: Terrible wrestool performance with very large executables
Hi, does this still affect any on 12.04? ** Changed in: icoutils (Ubuntu) Status: Confirmed = Incomplete -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/614918 Title: Terrible wrestool performance with very large executables To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/icoutils/+bug/614918/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 614918] Re: Terrible wrestool performance with very large executables
Yes, can confirm this is still the case in 12.04. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/614918 Title: Terrible wrestool performance with very large executables To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/icoutils/+bug/614918/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 614918] Re: Terrible wrestool performance with very large executables
** Changed in: icoutils (Ubuntu) Status: Incomplete = Triaged ** Changed in: icoutils (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided = High -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/614918 Title: Terrible wrestool performance with very large executables To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/icoutils/+bug/614918/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 614918] Re: Terrible wrestool performance with very large executables
Confirmed for Ubuntu 11.10 and Dolphin with previews for Microsoft executables enabled and file size limit set to 500MB. With even single 454.8 MB exe sitting in Download folder everything locks up pretty hard for a while, although this behaviour seems to be random at first glance. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/614918 Title: Terrible wrestool performance with very large executables To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/icoutils/+bug/614918/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 614918] Re: Terrible wrestool performance with very large executables
Same here ... Not solved ... (Ubuntu 10.04 Gnome 2.32.1) up to date. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/614918 Title: Terrible wrestool performance with very large executables To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/icoutils/+bug/614918/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 614918] Re: Terrible wrestool performance with very large executables
This is an excerpt of the latest version of icoutils (0.29.1). More specifically out of the wrestool/main.c file. This C-Code will be run for every file you pass as an argument to wrestool: /* get file size */ fi.name = argv[c]; fi.total_size = file_size(fi.name); [...] /* open file */ fi.file = fopen(fi.name, rb); [...] /* read all of file */ fi.memory = xmalloc(fi.total_size); if (fread(fi.memory, fi.total_size, 1, fi.file) != 1) As promised, it will try to read ALL of the file into memory. Doing this with large self-extracting archives for example is a no-go. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/614918 Title: Terrible wrestool performance with very large executables -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 614918] Re: Terrible wrestool performance with very large executables
I have been witnessing this problem on an up-to-date Maverick. Downloading a large .exe from firefox via downthemall to the desktop caused nautilus to try and thumbnail it. Watching top shows my RAM shooting through the roof and causes my HDD to start swapping madly, absolutely decimating my computer's response for a while. This will eventually stop but then start back up again within the next few minute. I'd be pressed to revert this bug back to confirmed but I'd rather wait for further confirmation. There's a possible dupe report (bug 659617) that is claiming the same behavior. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/614918 Title: Terrible wrestool performance with very large executables -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 614918] Re: Terrible wrestool performance with very large executables
So I spent a half-hour dealing with the thrashing-while-downloading issue. The moment the download finished wrestool started up in full force, taking an absurd amount of time (and resources) before it finally wine-thumbnailed the .exe. I'm going to take the liberty to set this back to confirmed. I will not label bug 659617 as a dupe as it regards constant updating through incomplete/downloading .exes and this regards complete ones. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/614918 Title: Terrible wrestool performance with very large executables -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 614918] Re: Terrible wrestool performance with very large executables
Apologies, I don't have permission to alter the bug's status. I'd appreciate if someone can confirm this behavior still exists. Sorry for the spam. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/614918 Title: Terrible wrestool performance with very large executables -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 614918] Re: Terrible wrestool performance with very large executables
** Changed in: icoutils (Ubuntu) Status: Fix Released = Confirmed -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/614918 Title: Terrible wrestool performance with very large executables -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 614918] Re: Terrible wrestool performance with very large executables
I am using icoutils (0.29.1-0ubuntu1) on lucid (https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/lucid/amd64/icoutils/0.29.1-0ubuntu1~lucid), but the problem still exists. After installing the maverick version (https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/maverick/amd64/icoutils/0.29.1-0ubuntu1) the problem fixes. Will this update come to lucid? -- Terrible wrestool performance with very large executables https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/614918 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 614918] Re: Terrible wrestool performance with very large executables
That seems spurious, as the lucid and maverick versions are identical. Are you sure the icon didn't just get cached? -- Terrible wrestool performance with very large executables https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/614918 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 614918] Re: Terrible wrestool performance with very large executables
** Changed in: icoutils (Ubuntu) Status: Fix Released = New ** Changed in: icoutils (Ubuntu) Status: New = Fix Released -- Terrible wrestool performance with very large executables https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/614918 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 614918] Re: Terrible wrestool performance with very large executables
This bug was fixed in the package icoutils - 0.29.1-0ubuntu1 --- icoutils (0.29.1-0ubuntu1) maverick; urgency=low * debian/copyright: - code is now GPL3 licensed - new upstream authors * New upstream release (LP: #651845) - Drop package changes to config.sub and config.guess - Supports vista icons (LP: #60, #643085) - Performance improvements (LP: #614918) - Other fixes (LP: #643460) * debian/control: add homepage -- Scott Ritchie scottritc...@ubuntu.com Thu, 30 Sep 2010 00:27:59 -0700 ** Changed in: icoutils (Ubuntu) Status: New = Fix Released -- Terrible wrestool performance with very large executables https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/614918 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 614918] Re: Terrible wrestool performance with very large executables
What likely happened was gnome-exe-thumbnailer was attempting to show you the file when it wasn't finished downloading, and then kept retrying every time you killed the process. When you did the download the second time it may not have been to a visible folder, so gnome-exe-thumbnailer didn't look at it until it was done and you browsed to it, where it finally finished and cached the thumbnail -- Terrible wrestool performance with very large executables https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/614918 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 614918] Re: Terrible wrestool performance with very large executables
When I attempted to download it the second time, I logged into openbox so no question of gnome-thumbnailer running. A little while ago I logged into gnome again and the problem occurred again but this time the problem persisted only for a relatively short time as the gnome-exe-thumbnailer was successful in it's attempt to create the icon for vmware player lying on the desktop. But it delayed my login process and conky was showing wrestool as the top memory consuming process throughout this period. -- Terrible wrestool performance with very large executables https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/614918 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 614918] Re: Terrible wrestool performance with very large executables
I have just had a nightmare this morning involving wrestool. I was downloading vmware player for windows using opera and all of a sudden wrestool started and the machine went out of control. Conky was showing wrestool as the top memory user. I tried to kill wrestool using top(terminal top were both extremely slow) but werstool would be respawned somehow. So I killed the x-server and logged into openbox then started the download again using opera, this time no problem whatsoever ! -- Terrible wrestool performance with very large executables https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/614918 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 614918] Re: Terrible wrestool performance with very large executables
** Attachment added: Dependencies.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/53262419/Dependencies.txt -- Terrible wrestool performance with very large executables https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/614918 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
