Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 14:13:13 +0100 From: Jean-Yves Lefort <jylefort@brutele.be> To: Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@marcuscom.com> Cc: freebsd-gnome@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Evolution crawls on FreeBSD Message-ID: <20080303141313.24f906fb.jylefort@brutele.be> In-Reply-To: <1204504294.40616.24.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> 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> <1204504294.40616.24.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 19:31:34 -0500 Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@marcuscom.com> wrote: > 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. That argument does not stand, since there was at least one person lined up: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/devel/libtool15/Makefile.diff?r1=1.55;r2=1.56;f=h -- Jean-Yves Lefort <jylefort@brutele.be> [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHy/lyyzD7UaO4AGoRAuM1AJ9r9ewq79+Z3WTnj1SiiN8Cs0KeQACeLvZe V3tlenPfN2FpNGbH+oUJHsM= =5rmy -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080303141313.24f906fb.jylefort>