I then signalled the semaphores (Alt-S in the process browser and the processes went away).

Size of SHRange is now:��SHRange allInstances size. 217381 (After a couple GCs).

Are these things created when one views methods in the browser ?

Phil

On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 6:09 PM, phil@highoctane.be <phil@highoctane.be> wrote:

I had a look at the process browser and found this strange set of processes with semaphores and style in background.
How comes?
There is no browser open even.

See screenshot attached.

Phil

On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 5:10 PM, phil@highoctane.be <phil@highoctane.be> wrote:

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
>