[KPhotoAlbum] 45 000 images & KPhotoAlbum speed on Athlon 1GHz

[Walter Francis]

On Mon, January 30, 2006 17:17, Robert L Krawitz wrote:
> Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 00:06:55 +0200
> From: "Risto H. Kurppa" <risto at kurppa.fi>
>
>
> Just to let you know what happens with a large database..
>
>
> I finally managed to load (ie. I was able to track the damaged
> jpegs) my photo collection into KimDaBa (using kimdaba-2006-01-14-noi18n ).
>
> Try 2006-01-28.
>
>
> Sometimes it's very fast and does right away what I'm asking it to
> do (a search, show thumbnails, whatever). But sometimes (with no other resource monster
> programs running) it gets 'stuck'. It starts to work on something and doesn't respond
> to anything. I see that it's reading or writing (reading, I hope..) the hard drive.
> Usually
> the program takes some 370 (VM) + 200 (PM) Mb of memory - but it's been up to 700 +
> something.. But it'll eventually start working, if I'll just let it work (over the
> night, for example..) long enoug.
>
> At least saving makes it stuck for a while.. Never actually measured
> it precisely but I'd guess up to an hour or something
>
> Database size is about 21 Mb ( not compressed).
> Processor is Athlon 1GHz
>
>
> How much physical memory (which is likely to be much more important
> here than the processor speed)?  What you're describing sounds a lot like disk
> thrashing.  My guess would be that it doesn't have very good memory locality, which is
> common with database type things, and you've simply exceeded your physical memory.
> When that happens, performance
> falls off a cliff -- random memory access is about 100,000x faster than random disk
> access.

I have seen this too, but I can't put any reproduction steps behind it..  Kimdaba will
suddenly stop responding and I'll look at gkrellm and the cpu is at 100%.  However, on
my system it's definately not a resource issue, as I have an Amd65 3200 and 2G of ram.
 There's no disk activity going on at all (I also have loud scsi drives).

Seems to happen when going in and out of slideshow or doing a single view, not real
predictable sometimes.

I've been messing around for 5 minutes trying to reproduce it and can't seem to, but
yesterday when I was tagging and messing with the exif view to reduce it to what I
really want to see, it happened a few times on me..  It would stay in the 100%
cpu/unresponsive state for perhaps a minute or so.

-- 
Walter Francis
http://khayts.us
http://theblackmoor.net
http://unlimitedphoto.com                Powered by Fedora Core 3