On 1/12/07, Jamie McCracken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Im open to people's thoughts on this... (IE is 100% cpu usage at
> nice+19/ionice+7 during indexing really a problem?)
Having tracker use 100% CPU while the computer is on my lap kinda
sucks. Well, actually it blows. Lots of hot air on my le
Hi,
On Fri, 2007-01-12 at 12:04 +, Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote:
> 2. it requires _a lot_ of CPU power.
>
> Basically point 2 is a killer. No one is going to want to run this
> except in servers. Keeping the CPU busy almost 100% of the time is not
> nice: consumes more power, gets
Joe Shaw wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Jamie McCracken wrote:
>> point 2 is scheduled at nice +19 (same with Ionice +7) so it only uses
>> more cpu if its idle.
>
> That's not quite how the nice level works, at least in Linux. Higher
> nice values get a shorter timeslice, so they merely have less time to
Hi,
Jamie McCracken wrote:
> point 2 is scheduled at nice +19 (same with Ionice +7) so it only uses
> more cpu if its idle.
That's not quite how the nice level works, at least in Linux. Higher
nice values get a shorter timeslice, so they merely have less time to
get their work in before othe
On 1/12/07, Jamie McCracken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Adam Schreiber wrote:
> > Is it possible for tracker to use the gnome-power-manager api so that
> > the indexer will only run at all or at full speed when AC power is
> > available? There could be some kind of throttled mode or only process
On Fri, 2007-01-12 at 14:21 +, Jamie McCracken wrote:
>
>
> thanks thats a good idea (I assume I can use dbus to get the info so
> dont have to depend on any gnome stuff)
Yes. You can either get the AC power info from HAL (if you want to play
with all the devices and changed signals manuall
On Fri, 2007-01-12 at 13:26 +, Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote:
[snip]
> it makes my computer slowe _while I'm working with it_.
[snip]
updatedb started causing similar problems on distros from the the last
year or so. I don't understand why the nice level isn't preventing this.
Also, shouldn'
Adam Schreiber wrote:
> On 1/12/07, Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Basically point 2 is a killer. No one is going to want to run this
>> except in servers. Keeping the CPU busy almost 100% of the time is not
>> nice: consumes more power, gets my computer fan running fas
On 1/12/07, Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Basically point 2 is a killer. No one is going to want to run this
> except in servers. Keeping the CPU busy almost 100% of the time is not
> nice: consumes more power, gets my computer fan running faster and more
> loudly.. I c
Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote:
>
> IMHO, an ideal indexing program would receive file add/modify/delete
> notifications and record these notifications in a work queue for later
> processing. Then, when the user logs out or the screen is locked the
> indexer starts processing the notifications
On Sex, 2007-01-12 at 13:08 +, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
> How much cpu does updatedb takes? It is what we are using with
> gnome-search-tool right now. Everytime cron start it, it starts eating
> my cpu every day.
This computer (work desktop) I leave connected during the night, and
updatedb onl
2007/1/12, Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Having tried tracker 0.5.3 for a couple of days what I have to say is:
1. it uses little memory;
2. it requires _a lot_ of CPU power.
Basically point 2 is a killer. No one is going to want to run this
except in servers. Kee
Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote:
> Having tried tracker 0.5.3 for a couple of days what I have to say is:
> 1. it uses little memory;
> 2. it requires _a lot_ of CPU power.
>
> Basically point 2 is a killer. No one is going to want to run this
> except in servers. Keeping the CPU bus
Having tried tracker 0.5.3 for a couple of days what I have to say is:
1. it uses little memory;
2. it requires _a lot_ of CPU power.
Basically point 2 is a killer. No one is going to want to run this
except in servers. Keeping the CPU busy almost 100% of the time is not
nice: consum
On Fri, 2007-01-12 at 10:18 +0100, David Prieto wrote:
> > Thats because that was the intended behaviour. However, maybe we're
> > sending the wrong cups commands for this ("page-set" is "even" or "odd",
> > and "number-up" for the more pages per sheet).
>
> Where should I file a bug so in time th
> Thats because that was the intended behaviour. However, maybe we're
> sending the wrong cups commands for this ("page-set" is "even" or "odd",
> and "number-up" for the more pages per sheet).
Where should I file a bug so in time this issue can be fixed?
_
On Thu, 2007-01-11 at 16:06 +0100, Ruben Vermeersch wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-01-11 at 13:17 +0100, David Prieto wrote:
> > Which is obviously wrong and makes the final printed document difficult
> > as hell to read. So my proposal is, when setting printing options like
> > even/odd or inverse order, c
> I might be stupid but Vermine reversed would be enimrev?
Heh. No. What you say is not stupid :-)
What I reversed is not the string of characters, but the string of
syllables (or phonemes, if you prefer). I agree Syllables are hard to
define because their definition is at least language specific
18 matches
Mail list logo
