[Pharo-dev] Tell me about your workflow

Sebastian Sastre sebastian at flowingconcept.com
Mon Dec 16 08:14:26 EST 2013


like that?


On Dec 16, 2013, at 11:00 AM, GOUBIER Thierry <thierry.goubier at cea.fr> wrote:

> I'm happy with your test drive :)
> 
> I see that with your largest test, you are at ~6000ms for writing overall in the profiler (basicStoreVersion). Can you drill down a bit in it to reach places where it says FileReference>>writeStream (or something similar); this is the place where the effective writing takes place.
> 
> Thierry
> 
> De : Pharo-dev [pharo-dev-bounces at lists.pharo.org] de la part de Sebastian Sastre [sebastian at flowingconcept.com]
> Date d'envoi : lundi 16 décembre 2013 13:00
> À : Pharo Development List
> Objet : Re: [Pharo-dev] Tell me about your workflow
> 
> Okay, I'm impressed :D
> 
> filetree performs quite better and
> 
> gitfiletree in 3.0 really feels great
> 
> my incentive to upgrade went up a lot
> <Screen Shot 2013-12-16 at 9.57.04 AM.png>
> 
> On Dec 14, 2013, at 1:35 PM, GOUBIER Thierry <thierry.goubier at cea.fr> wrote:
> 
>> To install gitfiletree in 3.0:
>> 
>> Install OSProcess from the configuration browser or 'do it' the following in a workspace
>> 
>> Gofer new
>>     url: 'http://smalltalkhub.com/Pharo/MetaRepoForPharo30/main/';
>>     package: 'ConfigurationOfOSProcess';
>>     load.
>> ((Smalltalk at: #ConfigurationOfOSProcess) project version: #stable) load
>> 
>> Gofer new
>>     url: 'http://smalltalkhub.com/mc/ThierryGoubier/Alt30/main';
>>     package: 'MonticelloFileTree-Git';
>>     load
>> 
>> Then, in your Monticello browser, add repositories of type gitfiletree: in exactly the same way you would use filetree:. Beware: all save, copy, push and pull buttons on the GUI really do work and will call git on your behalf. If you only browse the repository, nothing will be committed or pushed.
>> 
>> The code to profile the writing time is the following :
>> 
>> | package dir  mcR pV pVInfo |
>> dir := 'temp' asFileReference.
>> self assert: dir exists not.
>> dir ensureCreateDirectory.
>> self assert: dir isWritable.
>> pV := MCWorkingCopy forPackage: (package := MCPackage named: 'Roassal').
>> pVInfo := pV ancestry ancestors first.
>> mcR := MCFileTreeRepository new directory: dir.
>> TimeProfiler spyAllOn: [mcR
>>         basicStoreVersion:
>>             (MCVersion new
>>                 setPackage: package
>>                 info: pVInfo
>>                 snapshot: pV snapshot
>>                 dependencies: #())].
>> dir deleteAll
>> 
>> Change Roassal with the name of the package you want to use to test. It will save the package, profile it, and then delete the temporary directory used.
>> 
>> Thierry
>> 
>> De : Pharo-dev [pharo-dev-bounces at lists.pharo.org] de la part de Sebastian Sastre [sebastian at flowingconcept.com]
>> Date d'envoi : samedi 14 décembre 2013 16:10
>> À : Pharo Development List
>> Objet : Re: [Pharo-dev] Tell me about your workflow
>> 
>> 
>> On Dec 14, 2013, at 5:53 AM, GOUBIER Thierry <thierry.goubier at cea.fr> wrote:
>> 
>>> I used to do FileTree save and then git commands in a Terminal, and missed a few times : 
>>> - Multiple version saves overwriting each other... because I forgot the git commit
>>> - Unability to explore the git history
>>> 
>>> So, when I discussed with Dale, the author of FileTree, I saw the possibility to just add the git commands I needed on top of FileTree... the result is gitfiletree.
>>> 
>>> Performance improvements... I'm wondering. From the profiling data I have, if I make writing 4x faster, I will only make a save 1.04x faster (with gitfiletree and Roassal). If to write less I have to compute a lot, do file reads and compares, md5 hashes, a diff... I'll probably replace a lot of writes by a lot of CPU time in Pharo and maybe be slower overall (not to mention more error prone).
>>> 
>> 
>>> Would you be ready to run some profiling code on your set ? I can make a simple test case. I also wonder if writing less could make the git commit faster, in which case it could be valuable.
>>> 
>> sure, send me the instructions
>> 
>> 
>>> Also, if you want to try gitfiletree and your repository, what you can try is just browse your repository and browse versions of your packages (browse, not load: a browse will load your package code components but not compile the code).
>>> 
>> 
>> ok, how should I install it?
>> 
>>> (I noticed that the use of git archive makes gitfiletree slower at package read time, but, since this is dwarfed by the Pharo compilation time when loading such large packages, I don't care :)).
>>> 
>>> Thierry
>>> De : Pharo-dev [pharo-dev-bounces at lists.pharo.org] de la part de Sebastian Sastre [sebastian at flowingconcept.com]
>>> Date d'envoi : samedi 14 décembre 2013 01:54
>>> À : Pharo Development List
>>> Objet : Re: [Pharo-dev] Tell me about your workflow
>>> 
>>> get it.
>>> 
>>> In my workflow I don't do git operations from the image.
>>> 
>>> I do those from the terminal itself in the server and using SourceTree on development
>>> 
>>> As far as I know, the place that has most space for improvement is when filetree does the writes
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Dec 13, 2013, at 6:28 PM, GOUBIER Thierry <thierry.goubier at cea.fr> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Sebastian,
>>>> 
>>>> sorry for the missing instructions... Had to board a train :)
>>>> 
>>>> In fact, it's not an alternative to filetree, instead it is an extension of filetree (and integrated into filetree, but not completely yet: no real configuration support, no windows support).
>>>> 
>>>> But yes, I should do a blog post somewhere about it :)
>>>> 
>>>> Meanwhile, in the train, I tested on Roassal and I profiled the writes...
>>>> 
>>>> Git is slow: on Roassal,
>>>>     Waiting for the git commit : 67%
>>>>     Writing the package to disk : 20% (writing the version file: 0.4%)
>>>>         -> No real cost associated with the metadata
>>>>         -> git is a lot more than I expected.
>>>> When I remove git (i.e. pure filetree)
>>>>     Making a snapshot of Roassal: 28.9%
>>>>     basic Store version : 67%
>>>>         writeBasicDefinitions : 30% (of which half of it is reordering some stuff, not writing)
>>>>         writeMethodHolderDefinitions: 27,8%
>>>>             Of which writing to disk effectively is 19.7%
>>>> 
>>>> Conclusion: gitfiletree will look slow because git is slow on such large commits :( And I don't see much gains to be made on the writing (i.e. a format change won't help much), but a lot to loose (code complexity, bugs). Unless a format change may make it faster for git somehow?
>>>> 
>>>> I'll keep profiling, or give you the code to use to profile yourself ?
>>>> 
>>>> Thierry
>>>> De : Pharo-dev [pharo-dev-bounces at lists.pharo.org] de la part de Sebastian Sastre [sebastian at flowingconcept.com]
>>>> Date d'envoi : vendredi 13 décembre 2013 16:56
>>>> À : Pharo Development List
>>>> Objet : Re: [Pharo-dev] Tell me about your workflow
>>>> 
>>>> so you are working on an alternative to filetree
>>>> 
>>>> I'm pretty sure if you setup a page (or blog post) somewhere with clear and easy instructions to follow many people will try to use it
>>>> 
>>>> and, if proven good and reliable, adopt it
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> sebastian
>>>> 
>>>> o/
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Dec 13, 2013, at 12:04 PM, GOUBIER Thierry <thierry.goubier at cea.fr> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> gitfiletree can be had this way (filetree is already in 3.0, gitfiletree is in the filetree configuration for Pharo 3.0 but is a bit hard to load).
>>>>> 
>>>>>     pharo/pharo pharo/Pharo.image confighttp://smalltalkhub.com/Pharo/MetaRepoForPharo30/main/ ConfigurationOfOSProcess --install=stable
>>>>>     pharo/pharo pharo/Pharo.image eval --save Gofer new url:\'http://smalltalkhub.com/mc/ThierryGoubier/Alt30/main\'\; package: \'MonticelloFileTree-Git\'\; load
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thierry
>>>>> 
>>>>> De : Pharo-dev [pharo-dev-bounces at lists.pharo.org] de la part de Sebastian Sastre [sebastian at flowingconcept.com]
>>>>> Date d'envoi : vendredi 13 décembre 2013 14:57
>>>>> À : Pharo Development List
>>>>> Objet : Re: [Pharo-dev] Tell me about your workflow
>>>>> 
>>>>> I can try a forced load on a 3.0 ignoring requisites for testing purposes
>>>>> 
>>>>> but I'm using this:
>>>>> https://github.com/dalehenrich/filetree
>>>>> 
>>>>> I'm not sure what you're are using
>>>>> 
>>>>> can you clarify?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Dec 13, 2013, at 11:43 AM, GOUBIER Thierry <thierry.goubier at cea.fr> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Ok. I'll try Roassal on a slow netbook to see. I don't see a factor of 10 difference between yours and Roassal, so I'll have a look.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thierry
>>>>>> De : Pharo-dev [pharo-dev-bounces at lists.pharo.org] de la part de Sebastian Sastre [sebastian at flowingconcept.com]
>>>>>> Date d'envoi : vendredi 13 décembre 2013 14:32
>>>>>> À : Pharo Development List
>>>>>> Objet : Re: [Pharo-dev] Tell me about your workflow
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> A bit.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This is from today's current version (and is not all, it's only the two biggest packages):
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> (MCPackage named: 'flow') workingCopy packageInfo classes size. 363.
>>>>>> (MCPackage named: 'flow') workingCopy packageInfo coreMethods size. 4585.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> (MCPackage named: 'airflowing') workingCopy packageInfo classes size. 377.
>>>>>> (MCPackage named: 'airflowing') workingCopy packageInfo coreMethods size. 5818.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Dec 13, 2013, at 11:25 AM, GOUBIER Thierry <thierry.goubier at cea.fr> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Roassal: 3493
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Number of versions in the package history: 733. Size of the version file: 202796.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Is that a lot lower than your count?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thierry
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> De : Pharo-dev [pharo-dev-bounces at lists.pharo.org] de la part de Sebastian Sastre [sebastian at flowingconcept.com]
>>>>>>> Date d'envoi : vendredi 13 décembre 2013 13:34
>>>>>>> À : Pharo Development List
>>>>>>> Objet : Re: [Pharo-dev] Tell me about your workflow
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> how many coreMethods?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Dec 13, 2013, at 7:00 AM, GOUBIER Thierry <thierry.goubier at cea.fr> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Bad news. Roassal package directory has 355 entries (343 classes + a few extensions) and I don't see much of a slow down (on 3.0). It's not instantaneous, but with a bit of feedback, it doesn't seems long.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I'll do some profiling.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thierry
>>>>>>>> De : Pharo-dev [pharo-dev-bounces at lists.pharo.org] de la part de GOUBIER Thierry
>>>>>>>> Date d'envoi : jeudi 12 décembre 2013 17:07
>>>>>>>> À : Pharo Development List
>>>>>>>> Objet : [PROVENANCE INTERNET] Re: [Pharo-dev] Tell me about your workflow
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thanks for the pointers.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I'll look at Seaside/Moose/Mondrian and Roassal, because I need code I can load and save in an image without destroying the very image I use to test  (which would happen if I load Pharo10 stuff in a 3.0 image ;) ).
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thierry
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> De : Pharo-dev [pharo-dev-bounces at lists.pharo.org] de la part de Yuriy Tymchuk [yuriy.tymchuk at me.com]
>>>>>>>> Date d'envoi : jeudi 12 décembre 2013 16:24
>>>>>>>> À : Pharo Development List
>>>>>>>> Objet : Re: [Pharo-dev] Tell me about your workflow
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> So if you want something big and with a lot of commits you can use Pharo* in general. Pharo10 has the most versions and Pharo30Inbox is the largest one. If you want some other projects then you heve to take a look at Seaside30, Mondrian, Moose, Glamour or Roassal.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Uko
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 12 Dec 2013, at 16:20, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk at me.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Pharo10 on SmalltalkHub is humongous. You can definitely do a stress test with it :)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Uko
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On 12 Dec 2013, at 15:43, GOUBIER Thierry <thierry.goubier at cea.fr> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I would need a large project, composed of one or more packages, with more than 150~200 classes, which triggers the slow read and writing times Sebastian experience. And, probably, to be complete, a long and complex commit history in git (> 100 commits).
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I'll keep in mind the idea of creating one randomly ;)
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Thierry
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> De : Pharo-dev [pharo-dev-bounces at lists.pharo.org] de la part de Yuriy Tymchuk [yuriy.tymchuk at me.com]
>>>>>>>>>> Date d'envoi : jeudi 12 décembre 2013 15:37
>>>>>>>>>> À : Pharo Development List
>>>>>>>>>> Objet : Re: [Pharo-dev] Tell me about your workflow
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Are you interested in a package or a project? I can provide you information based on size, etc…
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Uko
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On 12 Dec 2013, at 15:30, GOUBIER Thierry <thierry.goubier at cea.fr> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> I gave up running gitfiletree on 1.4 :(
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> It's possible to use gitfiletree from a 2.0 or a 3.0 image to browse your git repository, but testing the writing will be an issue.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> My best chance would be to find a large enough package I can use on 2.0 or 3.0 to test and profile. Does anybody has a large enough package which could fit? Anything that doesn't require a NDA to read it, of course. Is Roassal large enough?
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Thierry
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> De : Pharo-dev [pharo-dev-bounces at lists.pharo.org] de la part de Sebastian Sastre [sebastian at flowingconcept.com]
>>>>>>>>>>> Date d'envoi : jeudi 12 décembre 2013 12:12
>>>>>>>>>>> À : Pharo Development List
>>>>>>>>>>> Objet : Re: [Pharo-dev] Tell me about your workflow
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> gee the big code package is airflowing which I have, quite conservatively, running on #14438 images
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>  I load filetree like this:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Gofer new
>>>>>>>>>>>       url: 'http://ss3.gemstone.com/ss/FileTree';
>>>>>>>>>>>       package: 'ConfigurationOfFileTree';
>>>>>>>>>>>       load.
>>>>>>>>>>> ((Smalltalk at: #ConfigurationOfFileTree) project version: #'stable') load.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> and it never complained
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> let me know 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 12, 2013, at 3:53 AM, GOUBIER Thierry <thierry.goubier at cea.fr> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you would be ready to profile a package save on your repository, it would be great. In the mean time, I'll make available a special gitfiletree package to test. Which version of Pharo you are using? 2.0 or 3.0?
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thierry
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> De : Pharo-dev [pharo-dev-bounces at lists.pharo.org] de la part de Sebastian Sastre [sebastian at flowingconcept.com]
>>>>>>>>>>>> Date d'envoi : mercredi 11 décembre 2013 17:09
>>>>>>>>>>>> À : Pharo Development List
>>>>>>>>>>>> Objet : Re: [Pharo-dev] Tell me about your workflow
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> ok, if saving is dumping all, then 3 is confirmed? After the first commit, I'd say so.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> about 2, I don't know. I'm available to make tests and measure results
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> have a nice trip, keep us tuned about any progress
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 11, 2013, at 2:09 PM, Goubier Thierry <thierry.goubier at cea.fr> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you're right in the general case.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But a solution to that general problem will take time to be implemented (time I lack at the moment, sadly) and if the main gain is a few % because it's writing the version file and the metadata for methods which are the "slow" factors, then we'll have worked hard for nothing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you want to help, I'd really like to see either 2- or 3- confirmed. I can produce a special gitfiletree to remove writing the metadata, that you can try on a large project temporary copy; if the slow writing (and reading) is confirmed, then this is 3-
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (But I'm leaving on a trip tomorrow early, so I have no idea of when I'll have the time to do that :( ).
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thierry
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 11/12/2013 16:44, Sebastian Sastre a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Without entering in details, a cause for slow package write is dumping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all every time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For that strategy, we already have the image save which is magically fast.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, if we make something to scan the code and write only when it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different from what's on disk, then we would be preventing tons of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> redundant writes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sebastian <https://about.me/sebastianconcept>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> o/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 11, 2013, at 1:43 PM, Goubier Thierry <thierry.goubier at cea.fr
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:thierry.goubier at cea.fr>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 11/12/2013 16:27, Esteban Lorenzano a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ah, and IMHO the problem is not about reading... is about writing (if it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has to write the metadata each time...).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, personnaly, I don't know if this is the reason for the lack of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have three hypothesis for Sebastian problem:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 - Slow read time for version metadata
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Confirmed because of the 16 seconds wait time for reading the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> package metadata in the repository browser.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 - Slow metadata write
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3 - Slow package write
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have an implemented solution for 1-, a very easy to implement for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2-, and none yet for 3-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I'd really like to check if 3- is confirmed ;)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thierry
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Esteban
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Esteban Lorenzano
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <estebanlm at gmail.com <mailto:estebanlm at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:estebanlm at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   Thierry, I know there is a working version... let me search...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   (5 mins later)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   here:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/rjsargent/CypressReferenceImplementation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   Dale says Richard made a metadata-less version.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   We should take a look at that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   Esteban
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Goubier Thierry
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   <thierry.goubier at cea.fr
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:thierry.goubier at cea.fr><mailto:thierry.goubier at cea.fr>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       Esteban, Sebastian,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       In the filetree code, you will find a format without metadata,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       but it's not in use anymore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       If you use gitfiletree, it will write the metadata for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       compatibility reasons with filetree, but it will never read it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> back.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       I'm pushing code to make filetree robust to absence of metadata,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       but I haven't worked on it for a while.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       gitfiletree has solved the problem of a slow metadata read. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       does not solve any performance problem associated with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> writing, yet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       Thierry
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       Le 11/12/2013 16:12, Esteban Lorenzano a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           I know there is a version of filetree without metadata (more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           compelling
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           for projects that will never use other formats).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           Dale told me that there was a preview somewhere, but I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           didn't tested yet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           (lack of time) and now I cannot find the mail...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           Dale, can you re-send the link?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           Esteban
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Sebastian Sastre
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           <sebastian at flowingconcept.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:sebastian at flowingconcept.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           <mailto:sebastian at flowingconcept.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           <mailto:sebastian at __flowingconcept.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           <mailto:sebastian at flowingconcept.com>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                I should breath before I type, but you probably already
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           got that I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                meant /redundant writes/ (not reads)...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                Anyway.. I was talking with Esteban and he mentions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           some kind of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                compatibility metadata.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                If I'm going to give a leap of faith to filetree repos
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           to save code
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                why should I care about mcz compatibility? Paying a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           toll for no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                reason is evil.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                Maybe we could make that optional so those who don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           extract value
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                from that feature can opt-out?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                sebastian <https://about.me/__sebastianconcept
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           <https://about.me/sebastianconcept>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                o/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                On Dec 11, 2013, at 12:44 PM, Sebastian Sastre
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                <sebastian at flowingconcept.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:sebastian at flowingconcept.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           <mailto:sebastian at flowingconcept.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           <mailto:sebastian at __flowingconcept.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           <mailto:sebastian at flowingconcept.com>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                    Hi Thierry
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                    On Dec 11, 2013, at 12:43 PM, Goubier Thierry
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                    <thierry.goubier at cea.fr
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:thierry.goubier at cea.fr>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>               <mailto:thierry.goubier at cea.fr>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>               <mailto:thierry.goubier at cea.fr
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>               <mailto:thierry.goubier at cea.fr>__>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                            I have packages (in the order of hundreds
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                       of classes) and save
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                            delays
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                            and package click delays are starting to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                       demand patience in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                            way that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                            doesn't feel like the right path
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                        Which operations ? I didn't remember noticing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                   much with 179
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                        classes on a laptop without a SSD.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                    choose one. Just for clicking the package that will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>               should you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                    UUID, version and author I need to wait ~16
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>               seconds. Sounds like a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                    lot of overhead for reading a small .json file.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                    But the write is the most worrisome
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                            All that is with a SSD disk, otherwise save
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                       delays would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                            /way/ beyond
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                            unacceptable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                        I'd like to know more, and understand the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                   reason, for sure. As
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                        far as I know, filetree will rewrite the whole
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                   package to disk
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                        everytime... and maybe optimising that could be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                   the solution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                    Well, that explains a lot. Writing all every time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>               is the lazy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                    thing that's okay for a prototype and temporary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>               code in a proof of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                    concept but that massive redundant reads certainly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>               doesn't sounds
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                    like pro software. Specially for SSD's which has a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>               limited
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                    quantity of writes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                        Thierry
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                            sebastian
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                       <https://about.me/__sebastianconcept
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                       <https://about.me/sebastianconcept>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                            o/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                        --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                        Thierry Goubier
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                        CEA list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                        Laboratoire des Fondations des Systèmes Temps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                   Réel Embarqués
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                        91191 Gif sur Yvette Cedex
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                        France
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                        Phone/Fax: +33 (0) 1 69 08 32 92
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                   <tel:%2B33%20%280%29%201%2069%2008%2032%2092>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                        <tel:%2B33%20%280%29%201%2069%__2008%2032%2092>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                   / 83 95
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       Thierry Goubier
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       CEA list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       Laboratoire des Fondations des Systèmes Temps Réel Embarqués
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       91191 Gif sur Yvette Cedex
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       France
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       Phone/Fax: +33 (0) 1 69 08 32 92
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       <tel:%2B33%20%280%29%201%2069%2008%2032%2092> / 83 95
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thierry Goubier
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CEA list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Laboratoire des Fondations des Systèmes Temps Réel Embarqués
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 91191 Gif sur Yvette Cedex
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> France
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Phone/Fax: +33 (0) 1 69 08 32 92 / 83 95
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thierry Goubier
>>>>>>>>>>>>> CEA list
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Laboratoire des Fondations des Systèmes Temps Réel Embarqués
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 91191 Gif sur Yvette Cedex
>>>>>>>>>>>>> France
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Phone/Fax: +33 (0) 1 69 08 32 92 / 83 95

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pharo.org/pipermail/pharo-dev_lists.pharo.org/attachments/20131216/1f1f9850/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Screen Shot 2013-12-16 at 11.13.10 AM.png
Type: image/png
Size: 139673 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.pharo.org/pipermail/pharo-dev_lists.pharo.org/attachments/20131216/1f1f9850/attachment.png>


More information about the Pharo-dev mailing list