March 2017 - Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Importing icons

by Alexandre Bergel

Hi! During the sprint, we wanted to fix issue https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/19668/importIcons-fromFolder-inClass-cate… The issues is that some implementors of the method: importIcons: icons fromFolder: aString inClass: aClass category: aCategory uses some methods that are not defined: Behavior>>methodStart: and Behavior>>methodEnd Are the methods #importIcons:fromFolder:inClass:category: really used? Is there a different standard way to import icons in Pharo? (I know the one of Peter, but is this meant to replace those importIcons methods?) Cheers, Alexandre -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.

March 3, 2017

Re: [Pharo-dev] Growing large images: the case of Moose models

by Cyril Ferlicot D.

On 03/03/2017 14:06, Guillaume Larcheveque wrote: > > For your case: > - Do you care that your application use some more Mb of RAM ? > > No, we don't care about that I agree > > - Do you care if your application takes a couple extra ms to answer > a request ? (In any case, the full GC takes much more time and also > delays the answer right now) > > No, because we are only using seaside and browser to display > visualisations and UI, so we don't care that it answers with extra ms; > it will not freeze at all the UI In addition to Guillaume's comment: If it is in ms we do not care but longer full GC can be problematic some time. Do you have an idea of how long would be the full GC depending on the Eden size? If it add 500ms it should not be a problem. If it add 2sec it might be. > > Thank you very much for your experiment ClÃ©ment and Vincent; this point > is really important for us :-) > > -- > *Guillaume Larcheveque* > -- Cyril Ferlicot http://www.synectique.eu 2 rue Jacques PrÃ©vert 01, 59650 Villeneuve d'ascq France

March 3, 2017

Re: [Pharo-dev] Growing large images: the case of Moose models

by Guillaume Larcheveque

2017-03-03 13:54 GMT+01:00 ClÃ©ment Bera <bera.clement(a)gmail.com>: > > > On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Cyril Ferlicot D. < > cyril.ferlicot(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 03/03/2017 11:56, ClÃ©ment Bera wrote: >> > Hello everyone, >> > >> > This morning I investigated with Vincent Blondeau a problem reported by >> > the Moose community a while ago: loading Moose model is slower in Spur >> > (Pharo 5+) than in pre-Spur (Pharo 4 and older). In general, this >> > problem was present for anyone growing images to a significant size. >> > >> > To investigate the problem, we loaded a 200Mb[3] Moose model on a 250Mb >> > image, growing the image to 450Mb. Loading such a model takes 2 minutes >> > in Spur and 1m30s in pre-Spur VMs. >> > >> > Using the stable Pharo VM, the analysis results were the following: >> > - total time spent to load the Model: 2 minutes >> > - time spent in full GC: 1 minute (4 fullGCs) >> > - time spent in scavenges[1]: 15 seconds >> > On the 2 minutes spent, we have 50% of the time spent in full GCs, 12.5% >> > in scavenges, 37.5% executing code. >> > >> > We then used the latest VM that features the new compactor (VM from >> > beginning of March 2017 and over). The full GC execution time went down >> > from 1 minute to 2 seconds. >> > >> > In addition, we increased the size of Eden[2] from 4Mb to 12Mb. Time >> > spent in scavenges decreased from 15 seconds to 5 seconds. >> > >> > Overall, loading the model is now taking ~50 seconds instead of 2 >> minutes. >> > >> > To increase Eden size, one needs to run a script similar to: >> > >> > | currentEdenSize desiredEdenSize | >> > currentEdenSize := Smalltalk vm parameterAt: 44. >> > desiredEdenSize := currentEdenSize * 4. >> > Smalltalk vm parameterAt: 45 put: desiredEdenSize. >> > >> > _*And then restart the image.*_ >> > >> > I hope this report can be useful for some of you. I will try to make a >> > blog post out of it, detailing other GC settings one can change from the >> > image to improve performance. >> > _* >> > *_ >> > Best, >> > >> > Clement >> > >> > [1] A scavenge is basically the garbage collection of only young objects >> > [2] Eden is basically the space where objects are initially allocated. >> > [3] All numbers in the report are order of magnitudes and not precise >> > numbers >> > >> > >> > >> >> Hi, >> >> This is great! We will probably try it soon on our models. >> >> Guillaume had a question also, what is the counterparty if we let the >> EdenSize at this size when we are not loading/exporting a MSE? >> > > There are 2 main counterparts: > - You waste a bit of memory. If you increase from 4Mb to 12Mb, you waste > 8Mb. > - The user-pauses for scavenges may be more significant. > > There are customers using 64Mb Eden in production. It improves their > performance, they do not care about wasting 60Mb on machine with 16Gb RAM > and their application does heavy computation and does not need to be that > responsive. > > However for UI applications (typically the IDE), the scavenge pauses may > become significant enough to be noticed by the programmer. Maybe not at > 12Mb, but certainly at 64Mb. > > For your case: > - Do you care that your application use some more Mb of RAM ? > No, we don't care about that > - Do you care if your application takes a couple extra ms to answer a > request ? (In any case, the full GC takes much more time and also delays > the answer right now) > No, because we are only using seaside and browser to display visualisations and UI, so we don't care that it answers with extra ms; it will not freeze at all the UI > If you don't care, you can use larger Eden. In any case, an Eden of 12 or > 16 Mb should be safe. > > There are other settings that can be useful in your case. I will try to > write a post about it. > > >> Because in our case we deploy a server that might need to read some MSE. >> We cannot restart it with our current solution. In that case it would be >> good to have more info to select the best EdenSize for the server. >> >> Thank you! >> >> -- >> Cyril Ferlicot >> >> http://www.synectique.eu >> >> 2 rue Jacques PrÃ©vert 01, >> 59650 Villeneuve d'ascq France >> >> > Thank you very much for your experiment ClÃ©ment and Vincent; this point is really important for us :-) -- *Guillaume Larcheveque*

March 3, 2017

Re: [Pharo-dev] Growing large images: the case of Moose models

by philippe.back＠highoctane.be

Le 3 mars 2017 13:56, "ClÃ©ment Bera" <bera.clement(a)gmail.com> a Ã©crit : On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Cyril Ferlicot D. <cyril.ferlicot(a)gmail.com > wrote: > On 03/03/2017 11:56, ClÃ©ment Bera wrote: > > Hello everyone, > > > > This morning I investigated with Vincent Blondeau a problem reported by > > the Moose community a while ago: loading Moose model is slower in Spur > > (Pharo 5+) than in pre-Spur (Pharo 4 and older). In general, this > > problem was present for anyone growing images to a significant size. > > > > To investigate the problem, we loaded a 200Mb[3] Moose model on a 250Mb > > image, growing the image to 450Mb. Loading such a model takes 2 minutes > > in Spur and 1m30s in pre-Spur VMs. > > > > Using the stable Pharo VM, the analysis results were the following: > > - total time spent to load the Model: 2 minutes > > - time spent in full GC: 1 minute (4 fullGCs) > > - time spent in scavenges[1]: 15 seconds > > On the 2 minutes spent, we have 50% of the time spent in full GCs, 12.5% > > in scavenges, 37.5% executing code. > > > > We then used the latest VM that features the new compactor (VM from > > beginning of March 2017 and over). The full GC execution time went down > > from 1 minute to 2 seconds. > > > > In addition, we increased the size of Eden[2] from 4Mb to 12Mb. Time > > spent in scavenges decreased from 15 seconds to 5 seconds. > > > > Overall, loading the model is now taking ~50 seconds instead of 2 > minutes. > > > > To increase Eden size, one needs to run a script similar to: > > > > | currentEdenSize desiredEdenSize | > > currentEdenSize := Smalltalk vm parameterAt: 44. > > desiredEdenSize := currentEdenSize * 4. > > Smalltalk vm parameterAt: 45 put: desiredEdenSize. > > > > _*And then restart the image.*_ > > > > I hope this report can be useful for some of you. I will try to make a > > blog post out of it, detailing other GC settings one can change from the > > image to improve performance. > > _* > > *_ > > Best, > > > > Clement > > > > [1] A scavenge is basically the garbage collection of only young objects > > [2] Eden is basically the space where objects are initially allocated. > > [3] All numbers in the report are order of magnitudes and not precise > > numbers > > > > > > > > Hi, > > This is great! We will probably try it soon on our models. > > Guillaume had a question also, what is the counterparty if we let the > EdenSize at this size when we are not loading/exporting a MSE? > There are 2 main counterparts: - You waste a bit of memory. If you increase from 4Mb to 12Mb, you waste 8Mb. - The user-pauses for scavenges may be more significant. There are customers using 64Mb Eden in production. It improves their performance, they do not care about wasting 60Mb on machine with 16Gb RAM and their application does heavy computation and does not need to be that responsive. However for UI applications (typically the IDE), the scavenge pauses may become significant enough to be noticed by the programmer. Maybe not at 12Mb, but certainly at 64Mb. For your case: - Do you care that your application use some more Mb of RAM ? - Do you care if your application takes a couple extra ms to answer a request ? (In any case, the full GC takes much more time and also delays the answer right now) If you don't care, you can use larger Eden. In any case, an Eden of 12 or 16 Mb should be safe. There are other settings that can be useful in your case. I will try to write a post about it. > Because in our case we deploy a server that might need to read some MSE. > We cannot restart it with our current solution. In that case it would be > good to have more info to select the best EdenSize for the server. > > Thank you! > I have images that do not shrink with the new compactor and as there are no leaks I am wondering if there is a way for me to diagnose why this happens. I am routinely loading 100MB XML in the image but these are only transient. Shrinking works with a Pharo6 image but not with a 5.0 based. Strange. Anyone willing to pair over the internet to have a look? It is annoying because I am providing those images to customers and an ever growing thing is not really great especially with a non standard tech I am trying to push forward there. Phil > -- > Cyril Ferlicot > > http://www.synectique.eu > > 2 rue Jacques PrÃ©vert 01, > 59650 Villeneuve d'ascq France > >

March 3, 2017

Re: [Pharo-dev] Growing large images: the case of Moose models

by ClÃ©ment Bera

On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Cyril Ferlicot D. <cyril.ferlicot(a)gmail.com > wrote: > On 03/03/2017 11:56, ClÃ©ment Bera wrote: > > Hello everyone, > > > > This morning I investigated with Vincent Blondeau a problem reported by > > the Moose community a while ago: loading Moose model is slower in Spur > > (Pharo 5+) than in pre-Spur (Pharo 4 and older). In general, this > > problem was present for anyone growing images to a significant size. > > > > To investigate the problem, we loaded a 200Mb[3] Moose model on a 250Mb > > image, growing the image to 450Mb. Loading such a model takes 2 minutes > > in Spur and 1m30s in pre-Spur VMs. > > > > Using the stable Pharo VM, the analysis results were the following: > > - total time spent to load the Model: 2 minutes > > - time spent in full GC: 1 minute (4 fullGCs) > > - time spent in scavenges[1]: 15 seconds > > On the 2 minutes spent, we have 50% of the time spent in full GCs, 12.5% > > in scavenges, 37.5% executing code. > > > > We then used the latest VM that features the new compactor (VM from > > beginning of March 2017 and over). The full GC execution time went down > > from 1 minute to 2 seconds. > > > > In addition, we increased the size of Eden[2] from 4Mb to 12Mb. Time > > spent in scavenges decreased from 15 seconds to 5 seconds. > > > > Overall, loading the model is now taking ~50 seconds instead of 2 > minutes. > > > > To increase Eden size, one needs to run a script similar to: > > > > | currentEdenSize desiredEdenSize | > > currentEdenSize := Smalltalk vm parameterAt: 44. > > desiredEdenSize := currentEdenSize * 4. > > Smalltalk vm parameterAt: 45 put: desiredEdenSize. > > > > _*And then restart the image.*_ > > > > I hope this report can be useful for some of you. I will try to make a > > blog post out of it, detailing other GC settings one can change from the > > image to improve performance. > > _* > > *_ > > Best, > > > > Clement > > > > [1] A scavenge is basically the garbage collection of only young objects > > [2] Eden is basically the space where objects are initially allocated. > > [3] All numbers in the report are order of magnitudes and not precise > > numbers > > > > > > > > Hi, > > This is great! We will probably try it soon on our models. > > Guillaume had a question also, what is the counterparty if we let the > EdenSize at this size when we are not loading/exporting a MSE? > There are 2 main counterparts: - You waste a bit of memory. If you increase from 4Mb to 12Mb, you waste 8Mb. - The user-pauses for scavenges may be more significant. There are customers using 64Mb Eden in production. It improves their performance, they do not care about wasting 60Mb on machine with 16Gb RAM and their application does heavy computation and does not need to be that responsive. However for UI applications (typically the IDE), the scavenge pauses may become significant enough to be noticed by the programmer. Maybe not at 12Mb, but certainly at 64Mb. For your case: - Do you care that your application use some more Mb of RAM ? - Do you care if your application takes a couple extra ms to answer a request ? (In any case, the full GC takes much more time and also delays the answer right now) If you don't care, you can use larger Eden. In any case, an Eden of 12 or 16 Mb should be safe. There are other settings that can be useful in your case. I will try to write a post about it. > Because in our case we deploy a server that might need to read some MSE. > We cannot restart it with our current solution. In that case it would be > good to have more info to select the best EdenSize for the server. > > Thank you! > > -- > Cyril Ferlicot > > http://www.synectique.eu > > 2 rue Jacques PrÃ©vert 01, > 59650 Villeneuve d'ascq France > >

March 3, 2017

[pharo-project/pharo-core]

by GitHub

Branch: refs/tags/60424 Home: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-core

March 3, 2017

[pharo-project/pharo-core] 2872a9: 60424

by GitHub

Branch: refs/heads/6.0 Home: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-core Commit: 2872a98738df4b6ad87eeb0a40feab495032dd3d https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-core/commit/2872a98738df4b6ad87eeb0a… Author: Jenkins Build Server <board(a)pharo-project.org> Date: 2017-03-03 (Fri, 03 Mar 2017) Changed paths: M Athens-Cairo.package/SQSurfaceDispatch.class/instance/accessing structure variables/getSurfaceFormatFn_.st R ScriptLoader60.package/ScriptLoader.class/instance/pharo - scripts/script60423.st A ScriptLoader60.package/ScriptLoader.class/instance/pharo - scripts/script60424.st R ScriptLoader60.package/ScriptLoader.class/instance/pharo - updates/update60423.st A ScriptLoader60.package/ScriptLoader.class/instance/pharo - updates/update60424.st M ScriptLoader60.package/ScriptLoader.class/instance/public/commentForCurrentUpdate.st Log Message: ----------- 60424 19787 Athens crashes the VM https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/19787 http://files.pharo.org/image/60/60424.zip

March 3, 2017

Re: [Pharo-dev] Growing large images: the case of Moose models

by Blondeau Vincent

Thanks Eliot for the implementation of the new compactor! Just to add a piece of information: the mse imported have a size of 40Mb. Cheers, Vincent De : Pharo-dev [mailto:pharo-dev-bounces@lists.pharo.org] De la part de ClÃ©ment Bera EnvoyÃ© : vendredi 3 mars 2017 11:56 Ã : Discusses Development of Pharo Objet : [Pharo-dev] Growing large images: the case of Moose models Hello everyone, This morning I investigated with Vincent Blondeau a problem reported by the Moose community a while ago: loading Moose model is slower in Spur (Pharo 5+) than in pre-Spur (Pharo 4 and older). In general, this problem was present for anyone growing images to a significant size. To investigate the problem, we loaded a 200Mb[3] Moose model on a 250Mb image, growing the image to 450Mb. Loading such a model takes 2 minutes in Spur and 1m30s in pre-Spur VMs. Using the stable Pharo VM, the analysis results were the following: - total time spent to load the Model: 2 minutes - time spent in full GC: 1 minute (4 fullGCs) - time spent in scavenges[1]: 15 seconds On the 2 minutes spent, we have 50% of the time spent in full GCs, 12.5% in scavenges, 37.5% executing code. We then used the latest VM that features the new compactor (VM from beginning of March 2017 and over). The full GC execution time went down from 1 minute to 2 seconds. In addition, we increased the size of Eden[2] from 4Mb to 12Mb. Time spent in scavenges decreased from 15 seconds to 5 seconds. Overall, loading the model is now taking ~50 seconds instead of 2 minutes. To increase Eden size, one needs to run a script similar to: | currentEdenSize desiredEdenSize | currentEdenSize := Smalltalk vm parameterAt: 44. desiredEdenSize := currentEdenSize * 4. Smalltalk vm parameterAt: 45 put: desiredEdenSize. And then restart the image. I hope this report can be useful for some of you. I will try to make a blog post out of it, detailing other GC settings one can change from the image to improve performance. Best, Clement [1] A scavenge is basically the garbage collection of only young objects [2] Eden is basically the space where objects are initially allocated. [3] All numbers in the report are order of magnitudes and not precise numbers !!!************************************************************************************* "Ce message et les piÃ¨ces jointes sont confidentiels et rÃ©servÃ©s Ã l'usage exclusif de ses destinataires. Il peut Ã©galement Ãªtre protÃ©gÃ© par le secret professionnel. Si vous recevez ce message par erreur, merci d'en avertir immÃ©diatement l'expÃ©diteur et de le dÃ©truire. L'intÃ©gritÃ© du message ne pouvant Ãªtre assurÃ©e sur Internet, la responsabilitÃ© de Worldline ne pourra Ãªtre recherchÃ©e quant au contenu de ce message. Bien que les meilleurs efforts soient faits pour maintenir cette transmission exempte de tout virus, l'expÃ©diteur ne donne aucune garantie Ã cet Ã©gard et sa responsabilitÃ© ne saurait Ãªtre recherchÃ©e pour tout dommage rÃ©sultant d'un virus transmis. This e-mail and the documents attached are confidential and intended solely for the addressee; it may also be privileged. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy it. As its integrity cannot be secured on the Internet, the Worldline liability cannot be triggered for the message content. Although the sender endeavours to maintain a computer virus-free network, the sender does not warrant that this transmission is virus-free and will not be liable for any damages resulting from any virus transmitted.!!!"

March 3, 2017

Re: [Pharo-dev] Growing large images: the case of Moose models

by Cyril Ferlicot D.

On 03/03/2017 11:56, ClÃ©ment Bera wrote: > Hello everyone, > > This morning I investigated with Vincent Blondeau a problem reported by > the Moose community a while ago: loading Moose model is slower in Spur > (Pharo 5+) than in pre-Spur (Pharo 4 and older). In general, this > problem was present for anyone growing images to a significant size. > > To investigate the problem, we loaded a 200Mb[3] Moose model on a 250Mb > image, growing the image to 450Mb. Loading such a model takes 2 minutes > in Spur and 1m30s in pre-Spur VMs. > > Using the stable Pharo VM, the analysis results were the following: > - total time spent to load the Model: 2 minutes > - time spent in full GC: 1 minute (4 fullGCs) > - time spent in scavenges[1]: 15 seconds > On the 2 minutes spent, we have 50% of the time spent in full GCs, 12.5% > in scavenges, 37.5% executing code. > > We then used the latest VM that features the new compactor (VM from > beginning of March 2017 and over). The full GC execution time went down > from 1 minute to 2 seconds. > > In addition, we increased the size of Eden[2] from 4Mb to 12Mb. Time > spent in scavenges decreased from 15 seconds to 5 seconds. > > Overall, loading the model is now taking ~50 seconds instead of 2 minutes. > > To increase Eden size, one needs to run a script similar to: > > | currentEdenSize desiredEdenSize | > currentEdenSize := Smalltalk vm parameterAt: 44. > desiredEdenSize := currentEdenSize * 4. > Smalltalk vm parameterAt: 45 put: desiredEdenSize. > > _*And then restart the image.*_ > > I hope this report can be useful for some of you. I will try to make a > blog post out of it, detailing other GC settings one can change from the > image to improve performance. > _* > *_ > Best, > > Clement > > [1] A scavenge is basically the garbage collection of only young objects > [2] Eden is basically the space where objects are initially allocated. > [3] All numbers in the report are order of magnitudes and not precise > numbers > > > Hi, This is great! We will probably try it soon on our models. Guillaume had a question also, what is the counterparty if we let the EdenSize at this size when we are not loading/exporting a MSE? Because in our case we deploy a server that might need to read some MSE. We cannot restart it with our current solution. In that case it would be good to have more info to select the best EdenSize for the server. Thank you! -- Cyril Ferlicot http://www.synectique.eu 2 rue Jacques PrÃ©vert 01, 59650 Villeneuve d'ascq France

March 3, 2017

Growing large images: the case of Moose models

by ClÃ©ment Bera

Hello everyone, This morning I investigated with Vincent Blondeau a problem reported by the Moose community a while ago: loading Moose model is slower in Spur (Pharo 5+) than in pre-Spur (Pharo 4 and older). In general, this problem was present for anyone growing images to a significant size. To investigate the problem, we loaded a 200Mb[3] Moose model on a 250Mb image, growing the image to 450Mb. Loading such a model takes 2 minutes in Spur and 1m30s in pre-Spur VMs. Using the stable Pharo VM, the analysis results were the following: - total time spent to load the Model: 2 minutes - time spent in full GC: 1 minute (4 fullGCs) - time spent in scavenges[1]: 15 seconds On the 2 minutes spent, we have 50% of the time spent in full GCs, 12.5% in scavenges, 37.5% executing code. We then used the latest VM that features the new compactor (VM from beginning of March 2017 and over). The full GC execution time went down from 1 minute to 2 seconds. In addition, we increased the size of Eden[2] from 4Mb to 12Mb. Time spent in scavenges decreased from 15 seconds to 5 seconds. Overall, loading the model is now taking ~50 seconds instead of 2 minutes. To increase Eden size, one needs to run a script similar to: | currentEdenSize desiredEdenSize | currentEdenSize := Smalltalk vm parameterAt: 44. desiredEdenSize := currentEdenSize * 4. Smalltalk vm parameterAt: 45 put: desiredEdenSize. *And then restart the image.* I hope this report can be useful for some of you. I will try to make a blog post out of it, detailing other GC settings one can change from the image to improve performance. Best, Clement [1] A scavenge is basically the garbage collection of only young objects [2] Eden is basically the space where objects are initially allocated. [3] All numbers in the report are order of magnitudes and not precise numbers

March 3, 2017