From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lennart Borgman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Surely 'bzr branch' shouldn't be this slow? Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 20:46:34 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20100103174743.GB1653@muc.de> <87bphbhxxt.fsf@telefonica.net> <20100106131039.GB2447@muc.de> <4B448FF5.5060900@gnu.org> <87hbqze39u.fsf@telefonica.net> <83637fccsz.fsf@gnu.org> <87d41m740k.GNU's_Not_Unix!%yavor@gnu.org> <873a2hc0bl.GNU's_Not_Unix!%yavor@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1262893640 25118 80.91.229.12 (7 Jan 2010 19:47:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 19:47:20 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Yavor Doganov , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jan 07 20:47:14 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1NSyK9-0001zV-Qy for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2010 20:47:14 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49746 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NSyK5-0006zk-Dt for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2010 14:47:09 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NSyJy-0006wI-PP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2010 14:47:02 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NSyJv-0006nR-1W for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2010 14:47:02 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=43151 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NSyJu-0006nB-LT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2010 14:46:58 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-fx0-f228.google.com ([209.85.220.228]:51983) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NSyJs-0002Um-RA; Thu, 07 Jan 2010 14:46:57 -0500 Original-Received: by fxm28 with SMTP id 28so9891622fxm.26 for ; Thu, 07 Jan 2010 11:46:55 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=5zK+VRFw9M70zllR3tGJj879yuieYkYSzl2EwWPV8xk=; b=A7V7apFnyu5E3ea/RP4j3FUX81u/jEVmZsd8gp5jrgFzp+cW9NHyzx0WsFurkcQvqz MptehHqdIHD0My3nWSejErUKp1yNY0H+b6JU/69Y1taIDR3hvL8Dobea/AS9N3DSQ2NC 3F6ivw8Q+RrSkionHg/oU1+eYLCWZsTcgRNDM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=bKs+R+g8AMQ+OGk5bT8wj1KVbY2Ge42xUiH7aCgT0KfsGdCJdtz32tyZcN+yHcORl3 V40XFmnh1UfWwOibgJS1QdM/P/cWsXudXx9i7UbFJvCkxQfaHv9GqtgkeIHYgXCr3C5D zKMme3owzAgNSOL0edL/LOYPb7tmnhzU34rGY= Original-Received: by 10.239.150.79 with SMTP id m15mr977316hbb.32.1262893614173; Thu, 07 Jan 2010 11:46:54 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:119609 Archived-At: On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 8:43 PM, Stefan Monnier w= rote: >>> But it probably thrashes wildly because Bzr ends up using more than >>> 500MB. >> Indeed, it eats the memory + 500 MB swap, but there's still 500 MB >> swap availaible, so I can't explain myself this behavior. > > The amount of swap left is mostly irrelevant. =C2=A0What matters is that > there more memory in active use than the amount of RAM you have, so the > system spends its time moving data back&forth between RAM and swap, > which brings the whole system to a crawl. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrash_%28computer_science%29 Is it the design or the algorithm that are the problem?