Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 19:31:34 -0500 From: Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@marcuscom.com> To: Jean-Yves Lefort <jylefort@brutele.be> Cc: freebsd-gnome@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Evolution crawls on FreeBSD Message-ID: <1204504294.40616.24.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> In-Reply-To: <20080303001237.28a45ba9.jylefort@brutele.be> References: <20080301181608.5d393e02.ejcerejo@optonline.net> <1204415453.1262.26.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> <20080301191214.58432ae0.ejcerejo@optonline.net> <1204417247.1262.29.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> <20080301204637.74cfc75f.ejcerejo@optonline.net> <1204424514.1262.36.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> <20080303001237.28a45ba9.jylefort@brutele.be>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Mon, 2008-03-03 at 00:12 +0100, Jean-Yves Lefort wrote: > On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 21:21:54 -0500 > Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@marcuscom.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sat, 2008-03-01 at 20:46 -0500, E. J. Cerejo wrote: > > > On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 19:20:47 -0500 > > > Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@marcuscom.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 2008-03-01 at 19:12 -0500, E. J. Cerejo wrote: > > > > > On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 18:50:53 -0500 > > > > > Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@marcuscom.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 2008-03-01 at 18:16 -0500, E. J. Cerejo wrote: > > > > > > > I'm running FreeBSD 7.0RC3 and I'm trying to figure out why evolution takes over a minute to start, there are no error messages if I run it from terminal window. First I was running 6.3 but I upgraded to 7.0 thinking that it might of solve the problem but it didn't. What amazes me is, I've got ubuntu installed on the same machine and it only takes 3 seconds to start, also it only takes 3 seconds to start in windows. Evolution running like this is completely worthless. Any ideas what might be causing this? Please respond to my email address also. > > > > > > > > > > > > This has been discussed on this mailing list before. The number of > > > > > > plug-ins enabled in Evo slows down the load time as the loader is > > > > > > spinning trying to load each plug-in. You should disable all unneeded > > > > > > plug-ins. > > > > > > > > > > > > Joe > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > PGP Key : http://www.marcuscom.com/pgp.asc > > > > > > > > > > Plug-ins don't seem to have an effect when running it on ubuntu, all the plug-ins are enabled under ubuntu and still starts in 3 seconds. Are you trying to say that the FreeBSD loader is kind of primitive comparing to the linux loader? > > > > > > > > No. I'm saying that the tasks the FreeBSD loader performs takes longer > > > > than the ones performed by the Linux loader. > > > > > > Well, I disabled all the plugins and still takes 40 seconds to open that's a lot longer than linux with all the plugins enabled. As far I'm concerned evolution is out of my list of programs, I still have my doubts about the real reason as to why it takes so long to open. In reality there's no real reason as to why a program will take so long to open, if that's the case evolution will loose a lot of users in the FreeBSD community. > > > > You're free to build Evolution and e-d-s with debugging symbols, and > > watch it load in gdb if you don't believe me. Last time I did this, I > > found most of the time spent in the loader. Any optimizations would > > certainly be welcome. > > I suspect that the patch in this PR would have greatly helped: > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=104877 > > Indeed, a casual inspection of libexec/rtdl-elf/rtld.c shows that the > SO_NEEDED lists (Obj_Entry.needed) are walked recursively. Removing > the useless entries might therefore have a dramatic impact on > performance. This is what mezz suspected as well, and I believe he will test this. > > Unfortunately, the affected maintainer has closed the PR, mainly > because he could not understand it. And portmgr has backed the > maintainer, mainly because of personal friendship. We did not side with ade out of friendship. We had to weigh the benefit of this patch against the benefit of having a dedicated autotools maintainer. Since autotools is quite complex, but very critical to a large number of ports, and since we didn't have people lining up to be autotools maintainers, we opted to respect ade's maintainership of libtool, and his decision. I don't think you would like it very much if portmgr told you that you had to commit something to a port that you maintained. Personally, I like your patch. I was a big supported (and user) of ltverhack as well. There are quite a few things I would like to see committed to FreeBSD (e.g. this patch, pthread changes, etc.) but I have to respect the wishes of the maintainers of those subsystems as I could not, nor would not be able to, do a better job. > > With such irrational behaviours, this trend is not going to reverse > itself anytime soon: > > http://www.google.com/trends?q=ubuntu%2Cfreebsd I think portmgr's decision was rational (at least my vote was done rationally). I'm sorry this has driven a wedge between you and FreeBSD. I for one really appreciate all you contributed to the FreeBSD GNOME project, and to GNOME in general. Joe -- PGP Key : http://www.marcuscom.com/pgp.asc [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (FreeBSD) iEYEABECAAYFAkfLRuUACgkQb2iPiv4Uz4dLywCdHQXf9ahob8M8esMcZKDqPCdA /eAAoIOhhhBb9JitplA+TyKFykEmC1o8 =HCVD -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1204504294.40616.24.camel>