[Bug 198063] New: Digikam startup is extremely slow
Locked
123
123
[Bug 198063] Digikam startup is extremely slow
 
|
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=198063
--- Comment #19 from Gilles Caulier <caulier gilles gmail com> 2009-07-01 19:06:39 --- I hope that KDirWatch instance is initialized after startup scanning stage... Gilles -- Configure bugmail: https://bugs.kde.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug. _______________________________________________ Digikam-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel |
[Bug 198063] Digikam startup is extremely slow
|
|
In reply to this post by Bugzilla from martin.lubich@gmx.at
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=198063
--- Comment #20 from Gilles Caulier <caulier gilles gmail com> 2009-07-01 20:44:36 --- But your investigation is done without scanning enabled. Right ? If yes, KDirWatch is not the problem here. startup is really faster in this case. Gilles -- Configure bugmail: https://bugs.kde.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug. _______________________________________________ Digikam-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel |
[Bug 198063] Digikam startup is extremely slow
|
|
In reply to this post by Bugzilla from martin.lubich@gmx.at
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=198063
Johannes Tögel <[hidden email]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[hidden email] --- Comment #21 from Johannes Tögel <jtoegel42 gmail com> 2009-10-16 23:39:43 --- I also have a pretty big collection of photos (30000+), after running the fingerprint scan for all of them digikam startup is horribly slow, it takes ridiculous amounts of RAM (nearly 2 Gigabyte) and, worst of all, it doesn't show the image previews any more but says the image cannot be previewed. I'm running sidux with KDE 4.3.1 and digikam 1.0.0-beta4, on a PC with an AMD Athlon 64 X2 2,5 GHz, 4 gigs of RAM and ext3 File System. An immediate workaround IMO worth implementing would be to add an option for deleting fingerprints from the database. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugs.kde.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug. _______________________________________________ Digikam-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel |
[Bug 198063] Digikam startup is extremely slow
|
|
In reply to this post by Bugzilla from martin.lubich@gmx.at
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=198063
Gilles Caulier <[hidden email]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[hidden email] --- Comment #22 from Gilles Caulier <caulier gilles gmail com> 2009-10-17 00:21:06 --- I suspect that startup is slow because fingerprint data are merged with the rest of datase where other informations relevant of images are there. Proposal : separate fingerprint data in a new DB file. Gilles Caulier -- Configure bugmail: https://bugs.kde.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug. _______________________________________________ Digikam-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel |
[Bug 198063] Digikam startup is extremely slow
|
|
In reply to this post by Bugzilla from martin.lubich@gmx.at
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=198063
--- Comment #23 from Andi Clemens <andi clemens gmx net> 2009-10-17 00:35:12 --- For me digiKam got slower because of the thumbsDB, but I wrote this in here already :D Johannes, do have run a "find duplicates" search? This would explain the slow startup, if the search is removed (run it on a small folder will a high treshhold), it should be fast again. Fingerprints are not loaded into RAM, so no need to have such huge mem consumption. So actually the fingerprints data shouldn't be responsible for this, but the search. Try to remove it as described above and see if it is getting better. Andi -- Configure bugmail: https://bugs.kde.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug. _______________________________________________ Digikam-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel |
[Bug 198063] Digikam startup is extremely slow
|
|
In reply to this post by Bugzilla from martin.lubich@gmx.at
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=198063
--- Comment #24 from Andi Clemens <andi clemens gmx net> 2009-10-17 00:36:58 --- So again to sum it up: I also have a huge test collection here (50.000 images), no slow startup, only when I have a (fairly big) saved duplicates search. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugs.kde.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug. _______________________________________________ Digikam-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel |
[Bug 198063] Digikam startup is extremely slow
|
|
In reply to this post by Bugzilla from martin.lubich@gmx.at
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=198063
Edmon <[hidden email]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[hidden email] --- Comment #25 from Edmon <edmon laposte net> 2010-09-18 22:51:25 --- (In reply to comment #24) > So again to sum it up: I also have a huge test collection here (50.000 images), > no slow startup, only when I have a (fairly big) saved duplicates search. I have 35.000 images in a collection mounted via the network (samba) and digikam takes a few minutes to start. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugs.kde.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug. _______________________________________________ Digikam-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel |
[Bug 198063] Digikam startup is extremely slow
|
|
In reply to this post by Bugzilla from martin.lubich@gmx.at
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=198063
--- Comment #26 from Johannes Tögel <jtoegel42 gmail com> 2010-09-19 18:55:28 --- @Andi: Thank you very much, the duplicate search was the problem. Digikam still takes long for starting up, but ~1 Minute is acceptable. @Edmon: I don't know your specific setup, but I think that the bigger latencies and lower transfer rate one usually gets over the network could be the problem. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugs.kde.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug. _______________________________________________ Digikam-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel |
[Bug 198063] Digikam startup is extremely slow
|
|
In reply to this post by Bugzilla from martin.lubich@gmx.at
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=198063
--- Comment #27 from Edmon <edmon laposte net> 2010-09-19 20:30:43 --- Thanks for your answer Johannes. I still have a question: Because I disabled the search for new elements at startup, I would not expect digikam to do any scan at startup. But strace -c gives something similair to comment #11: % time seconds usecs/call calls errors syscall ------ ----------- ----------- --------- --------- ---------------- 40.61 1085.971160 16871 64369 2861 stat64 18.87 504.701133 8906 56672 41793 access 8.78 234.882550 15863 14807 8507 read 4.59 122.687562 16710 7342 767 lstat64 4.55 121.577073 17274 7038 clock_gettime 4.35 116.254236 15736 7388 poll 2.96 79.104965 17974 4401 1960 open 2.54 67.821400 15736 4310 writev 2.07 55.338870 16176 3421 fstat64 1.63 43.579692 17404 2504 close 1.58 42.294013 15572 2716 gettimeofday 1.02 27.192223 19354 1405 getdents 0.95 25.522614 16267 1569 fcntl64 0.89 23.930248 18710 1279 time 0.75 19.972555 18391 1086 mmap2 0.55 14.635050 18502 791 inotify_add_watch 0.46 12.408250 19208 646 statfs 0.41 10.844816 15274 710 42 inotify_rm_watch 0.34 9.191334 17778 517 write 0.29 7.739680 18605 416 mprotect 0.26 6.918042 18063 383 _llseek 0.20 5.441880 17113 318 37 futex 0.21 5.505908 17876 308 brk 0.20 5.225893 17836 293 ioctl 0.16 4.249862 17857 238 16 unlink 0.15 3.996653 18167 220 munmap 0.09 2.312125 18497 125 uname 0.07 1.996904 19201 104 getcwd 0.07 1.785698 18221 98 fchmod 0.06 1.724894 18350 94 link 0.05 1.281683 15442 83 select 0.01 0.384020 19201 20 4 connect 0.01 0.307216 19201 16 shmctl 0.01 0.211211 19201 11 readlink 0.01 0.153608 19201 8 pipe 0.01 0.153608 19201 8 geteuid32 0.01 0.153608 19201 8 setsockopt 0.01 0.134407 19201 7 getgid32 0.00 0.115206 19201 6 semop 0.00 0.115206 19201 6 semctl 0.00 0.096005 19201 5 sched_get_priority_min 0.00 0.076804 19201 4 fdatasync 0.00 0.076804 19201 4 2 mlock 0.00 0.076804 19201 4 sched_get_priority_max 0.00 0.076804 19201 4 ftruncate64 0.00 0.076804 19201 4 getegid32 0.00 0.076804 19201 4 clock_getres 0.00 0.076804 19201 4 shmat 0.00 0.076804 19201 4 shmdt 0.00 0.076804 19201 4 shmget 0.00 0.057603 19201 3 pipe2 0.00 0.057603 19201 3 3 send 0.00 0.038402 19201 2 2 mkdir 0.00 0.038402 19201 2 umask 0.00 0.038402 19201 2 rt_sigprocmask 0.00 0.038402 19201 2 semget 0.00 0.019201 19201 1 execve 0.00 0.019201 19201 1 utime 0.00 0.019201 19201 1 fstatfs 0.00 0.019201 19201 1 sched_getparam 0.00 0.019201 19201 1 sched_getscheduler 0.00 0.019201 19201 1 getrlimit 0.00 0.019201 19201 1 getresuid32 0.00 0.019201 19201 1 getresgid32 0.00 0.019201 19201 1 sched_getaffinity 0.00 0.019201 19201 1 set_thread_area 0.00 0.019201 19201 1 set_tid_address 0.00 0.019201 19201 1 statfs64 0.00 0.019201 19201 1 inotify_init 0.00 0.019201 19201 1 set_robust_list 0.03 0.854447 18180 47 getuid32 0.02 0.632035 18058 35 socket 0.02 0.625633 18959 33 clone 0.01 0.374422 17019 22 getsockname 0.01 0.337706 18761 18 getdents64 0.01 0.336020 16801 20 getpeername 0.01 0.321616 17868 18 rt_sigaction 0.01 0.276015 18401 15 kill 0.01 0.248015 16534 15 bind 0.01 0.248015 16534 15 listen 0.01 0.220814 15772 14 accept 0.01 0.220814 15772 14 getsockopt 0.01 0.136807 15201 9 madvise 0.00 0.049603 16534 3 rename 0.00 0.040802 10201 4 getpid 0.00 0.030402 15201 2 fchown32 0.00 0.015201 15201 1 lseek ------ ----------- ----------- --------- --------- ---------------- 100.00 2674.110292 186095 55994 total Why digikam would call 64369 times stat64 when I disabled the search for new elements? (and I don't think I have a fingerprint database to look for duplicates. How can I make sure of that ?) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugs.kde.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug. _______________________________________________ Digikam-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel |
[Bug 198063] Digikam startup is extremely slow
|
|
In reply to this post by Bugzilla from martin.lubich@gmx.at
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=198063
--- Comment #28 from Johannes Tögel <jtoegel42 gmail com> 2010-09-19 22:57:21 --- Edmon, I am not a digikam developer and don't know very much about Linux/UNIX on a technical level, but I think that digikam just scans all existing images to find out if they got deleted or changed since the last time digikam was started. That would only explain about 35000 of the 64369 calls, but it sounds quite logical to me. Regarding the fingerprint database, on the left side of the digikam window there is a vertical tab labeled "Search for duplicates" or similar, if you didn't use this in the past it's highly unlikely to cause problems, because the fingerprint generation has to be started manually. I had the problem that I closed digikam with an open duplicate search, which caused digikam to load the fingerprints to the RAM every time at startup. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugs.kde.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug. _______________________________________________ Digikam-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel |
[Bug 198063] Digikam startup is extremely slow
|
|
In reply to this post by Bugzilla from martin.lubich@gmx.at
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=198063
Johan Swanepoel <[hidden email]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[hidden email] | |m --- Comment #29 from Johan Swanepoel <johannes swanepoel gmail com> 2010-10-03 02:17:41 --- Hi Guys Firstly let me say I really like Digikam. I have been experiencing the startup problem for a while now, so hopefully this information will help. Digikam takes about 5-10 minutes to start-up, with scanning for new images disabled. I had a quick startup once after running cleanup_digikamdb, but it is slow again after that. OS: Kubuntu 10.04 File System: EXT 4 (local disk, images and DB in same folder) Images: 34466 (find . -type f | wc -l) Average Image Size: 8-15 MP Album size: 123GB Startup output: digikam QSqlDatabasePrivate::removeDatabase: connection 'ConnectionTest' is still in use, all queries will cease to work. Time elapsed: 218 ms Model: Time elapsed: 440 ms TextureColorizer: Time elapsed: 125 ms Time elapsed: 2 ms Model: Time elapsed: 26 ms QInotifyFileSystemWatcherEngine::addPaths: inotify_add_watch failed: No such file or directory QFileSystemWatcher: failed to add paths: /home/johan/.config/ibus/bus Bus::open: Can not get ibus-daemon's address. IBusInputContext::createInputContext: no connection to ibus-daemon -- Configure bugmail: https://bugs.kde.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug. _______________________________________________ Digikam-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel |
[Bug 198063] Digikam startup is extremely slow
|
|
In reply to this post by Bugzilla from martin.lubich@gmx.at
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=198063
--- Comment #30 from Gilles Caulier <[hidden email]> --- About sqlite and Ext4 performance issue, i found this instructive page : http://neuntoeter.wordpress.com/2012/06/21/io-probleme-mit-digikam/ Someone which use Ext4 FS can confirm that perfoemance are improved with this solution ? Gilles Caulier -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. _______________________________________________ Digikam-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel |
[Bug 198063] Digikam startup is extremely slow
|
|
In reply to this post by Bugzilla from martin.lubich@gmx.at
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=198063
--- Comment #31 from Andi Clemens <[hidden email]> --- Yes it seems to be a little bit faster... not as fast as turning barriers off though... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. _______________________________________________ Digikam-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel |
[Bug 198063] Digikam startup is extremely slow
|
|
In reply to this post by Bugzilla from martin.lubich@gmx.at
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=198063
--- Comment #32 from Andi Clemens <[hidden email]> --- Keep in mind that WAL journaling should not be used with network filesystems!! See http://www.sqlite.org/draft/wal.html for more details. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. _______________________________________________ Digikam-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel |
[Bug 198063] Digikam startup is extremely slow
|
|
In reply to this post by Bugzilla from martin.lubich@gmx.at
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=198063
--- Comment #33 from Marcel Wiesweg <[hidden email]> --- I would expect performance with WAL to be much better in situations where digikam writes to the database in multiple commits: Scanning new images, creating thumbnails, working with the application in parallel. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. _______________________________________________ Digikam-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel |
[Bug 198063] Digikam startup is extremely slow
|
|
In reply to this post by Bugzilla from martin.lubich@gmx.at
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=198063
Axel Krebs <[hidden email]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[hidden email] --- Comment #34 from Axel Krebs <[hidden email]> --- Hi there, I was updating digiKam yesterday to V. 2.6. Nice impression, congratulations! Starting procedure is extremely slow- similar to previous v. 2.5. Some data from "help >> statistics of database": digiKam version 2.6.0 Bilder: BMP: 1 GIF: 100 JP2: 16 JPG: 115990 PGF: 2 PNG: 1444 RAW-CR2: 632 RAW-CRW: 15778 RAW-DNG: 7 RAW-NEF: 70008 TIFF: 1655 XCF: 1 Gesamt: 205634 : Videos: AVI: 73 MOV: 16 MPEG: 2 Gesamt: 91 Gesamtzahl der Einträge: 205725 Alben: 2638 Stichwörter: 92 Datenbanktreiber: QSQLITE Starting digiKam at..,. Time Durance Memory 19:11:24 00:00:00 19:18:05 00:06:41 2681292 19:28:00 00:16:36 3027132 19:33:35 00:22:11 3660744 So, after some 23(!!) minutes, digikam starts up finally. Astonishing observation for me: it looks like only _one_ of four cpus were engaged- value constantly nearby to 25%. Somestimes, CPUs changed. File sizes: thumbnails-digikam.db: 4,7 GB digikam4.db: 350,4 MiB Hope this indicates you potential for improvements. Axel -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. _______________________________________________ Digikam-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel |
[digikam] [Bug 198063] Digikam startup is extremely slow
|
|
In reply to this post by Bugzilla from martin.lubich@gmx.at
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=198063
--- Comment #35 from Gilles Caulier <[hidden email]> --- Martin, Following the discussion here, what's news about this file ? Do you have found a solution to your database storage place and env ? Gilles Caulier -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. _______________________________________________ Digikam-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel |
[digikam] [Bug 198063] SCAN : digikam startup is extremely slow
|
|
In reply to this post by Bugzilla from martin.lubich@gmx.at
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=198063
Gilles Caulier <[hidden email]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Digikam startup is |SCAN : digikam startup is |extremely slow |extremely slow -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. _______________________________________________ Digikam-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel |
[digikam] [Bug 198063] SCAN : digikam startup is extremely slow
|
|
In reply to this post by Bugzilla from martin.lubich@gmx.at
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=198063
--- Comment #36 from Martin Lubich <[hidden email]> --- Gilles There has been a lot of development and progression both in digikam and in my photo organization :) I have no real issues anymore with startup speed. Currently my images reside on a samba mount ( over a 1Gbit network connection) with my database locally on an ext4 filesystem. The number of images have grown now to roughly 80000. The scan, digikam does immediately after it started, takes about 6 seconds, which is in my opinion quite impressive for the configuration I am using. So, no problems regarding startup scanning time :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. _______________________________________________ Digikam-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel |
[digikam] [Bug 198063] SCAN : digikam startup is extremely slow
|
|
In reply to this post by Bugzilla from martin.lubich@gmx.at
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=198063
Gilles Caulier <[hidden email]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED Version Fixed In| |4.3.0 --- Comment #37 from Gilles Caulier <[hidden email]> --- Thanks for this feedback Gilles Caulier -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. _______________________________________________ Digikam-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel |
«
Return to digikam-devel
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |