Yeah, that's a tad weird.

I am quite concerned about that image ballooning effect.

I've got a dev image and it is now 185.515.948

I did the flush thing��

MCFileBasedRepository flushAllCaches.

3 timesRepeat: [Smalltalk garbageCollect].

and now, it is 158.740.484

SpaceTally new printSpaceAnalysis

shows:

Class �� code space # instances ��inst space �� percent �� inst average size

Array �� 3712 �� 817192 �� 31395576 �� 19.30 �� 38.42

Float �� 13047 �� 1313593 �� 15763116 �� 9.70 �� 12.00

ByteString �� 2785 �� 378125 �� 13078821 �� 8.00 �� 34.59

MorphExtension �� 3097 �� 157557 �� 10713876 �� 6.60 �� 68.00

Bitmap �� 3653 �� 1975 �� 10198648 �� 6.30 �� 5163.87

TextMethodLink �� 419 �� 392396 �� 9417504 �� 5.80 �� 24.00

Point �� 7105 �� 711444 �� 8537328 �� 5.30 �� 12.00

CompiledMethod �� 22467 �� 82802 �� 5215856 �� 3.20 �� 62.99

SHRange �� 1919 �� 217316 �� 4346320 �� 2.70 �� 20.00

Rectangle �� 8795 �� 325385 �� 3904620 �� 2.40 �� 12.00

TableLayoutProperties �� 1169 �� 49629 �� 3573288 �� 2.20 �� 72.00

Semaphore �� 949 �� 149195 �� 2983900 �� 1.80 �� 20.00

A ton of MorphExtensions (which is a know problem).

but also quite some TextMethodLinks, which I do not understand.

SHRange, from styling things I guess, lots of remnants.

And quite a bunch of Semaphores, too much I think.

Tons of Arrays and floats. I do a lot of NeoCSV loads in the image.

Phil

On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:

On 11 Nov 2013, at 15:51, phil@highoctane.be wrote:

> Image size goes back to:
>
> 29.068.612
>
> Looks like all package contents are cached in the image��

But by a factor 3 ??

> Phil
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck <marianopeck@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@highoctane.be <phil@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@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@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
>