Evolution crawls on FreeBSD

[Joe Marcus Clarke]

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 at 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 at 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 at 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-gnome/attachments/20080303/7b8c0950/attachment.pgp