[Pharo-dev] Large difference in image size when loading configuration

phil at highoctane.be phil at highoctane.be
Mon Nov 11 09:51:53 EST 2013


Image size goes back to:

29.068.612

Looks like all package contents are cached in the image...

Phil



On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck <
marianopeck at 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, phil at highoctane.be <phil at 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 <sven at 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, phil at 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pharo.org/pipermail/pharo-dev_lists.pharo.org/attachments/20131111/d6eafdee/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the Pharo-dev mailing list