Hello,

virtuoso-t (kde 4.7.4 from Debian experimental, which otherwise is excellent
!) consumes here a lot of CPU time (116% of a dual core)

PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
28282 rd 39 19 843m 828m 6840 S 150 20.5 86:21.94 virtuoso-t

The problem does not occur at startup of KDE, but after a while (even when I
am away from the system I see the problem).

What information is needed to help narrow down the problem?

Thanks,
Rainer



--
Rainer Dorsch
http://bokomoko.de/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kde-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 201112301322.47972.ml@bokomoko.de">http://lists.debian.org/201112301322.47972.ml@bokomoko.de

Am Freitag, 30. Dezember 2011 schrieb Rainer Dorsch:
> Hello,
>
> virtuoso-t (kde 4.7.4 from Debian experimental, which otherwise is
> excellent !) consumes here a lot of CPU time (116% of a dual core)
>
> PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
> 28282 rd 39 19 843m 828m 6840 S 150 20.5 86:21.94 virtuoso-t
>
> The problem does not occur at startup of KDE, but after a while (even
> when I am away from the system I see the problem).
>
> What information is needed to help narrow down the problem?

I had this at times during initial Nepomuk desktop search indexing as
well. But not all of the times. There have been times where virtuoso-t
consumed lots of CPUs and then it has been quiet for a while.

I did not see it since then.

I had the feeling - completely unproven - that it got better after I
raised the maximum amount of memory the database process may use under
systemsettings, then "Desktopsuche | Erweiterte Einstellungen" ("desktop
search | "extended settings" or something like that). I now have set it to
512 MiB, I think it was 64 MiB initially. I thought 512 MiB wouldn´t be
too much considering that the laptop has 8 GiB.

Otherwise you can try disabling desktop search or wait till the initial
scan is over.

Nepomuk strigi/streamanalyser desktop indexing from KDE SC 4.7.4 seems to
be the first one that actually made it through my home directory.
Everything prior to that crashed at some file - without telling me which
one. And it had way less resource consumption. But then it also took way
longer for the initial scan to complete.

Ciao,
--
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kde-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 201112301557.29572.Martin@lichtvoll.de">http://lists.debian.org/201112301557.29572.Martin@lichtvoll.de

Hi Martin,

thanks for your quick reply.

Am Friday 30 December 2011 schrieb Martin Steigerwald:
> Am Freitag, 30. Dezember 2011 schrieb Rainer Dorsch:
> > Hello,
> >
> > virtuoso-t (kde 4.7.4 from Debian experimental, which otherwise is
> > excellent !) consumes here a lot of CPU time (116% of a dual core)
> >
> > PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
> >
> > 28282 rd 39 19 843m 828m 6840 S 150 20.5 86:21.94 virtuoso-t
> >
> > The problem does not occur at startup of KDE, but after a while (even
> > when I am away from the system I see the problem).
> >
> > What information is needed to help narrow down the problem?
>
> I had this at times during initial Nepomuk desktop search indexing as
> well. But not all of the times. There have been times where virtuoso-t
> consumed lots of CPUs and then it has been quiet for a while.
>
> I did not see it since then.
>
> I had the feeling - completely unproven - that it got better after I
> raised the maximum amount of memory the database process may use under
> systemsettings, then "Desktopsuche | Erweiterte Einstellungen" ("desktop
> search | "extended settings" or something like that). I now have set it to
> 512 MiB, I think it was 64 MiB initially. I thought 512 MiB wouldn´t be
> too much considering that the laptop has 8 GiB.

I increased already before posting from 512 MiB to 1024 MiB. I did not see a
change.

> Otherwise you can try disabling desktop search or wait till the initial
> scan is over.

For me it looks like on my stystem, after restarting the system nepomuk starts
indexing again from scratch, even when it seems to have completed the
indexing.

> Nepomuk strigi/streamanalyser desktop indexing from KDE SC 4.7.4 seems to
> be the first one that actually made it through my home directory.
> Everything prior to that crashed at some file - without telling me which
> one. And it had way less resource consumption. But then it also took way
> longer for the initial scan to complete.

Rainer

--
Rainer Dorsch
http://bokomoko.de/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kde-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 201201011646.40559.ml@bokomoko.de">http://lists.debian.org/201201011646.40559.ml@bokomoko.de

Am Sonntag, 1. Januar 2012 schrieb Rainer Dorsch:
> Hi Martin,

Hi Rainer,

> thanks for your quick reply.

A happy new year to you and everyone else!

>
> Am Friday 30 December 2011 schrieb Martin Steigerwald:
> > Am Freitag, 30. Dezember 2011 schrieb Rainer Dorsch:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > virtuoso-t (kde 4.7.4 from Debian experimental, which otherwise is
> > > excellent !) consumes here a lot of CPU time (116% of a dual core)
> > >
> > > PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+
> > > COMMAND
> > >
> > > 28282 rd 39 19 843m 828m 6840 S 150 20.5 86:21.94
> > > virtuoso-t
> > >
> > > The problem does not occur at startup of KDE, but after a while
> > > (even when I am away from the system I see the problem).
> > >
> > > What information is needed to help narrow down the problem?
> >
> > I had this at times during initial Nepomuk desktop search indexing as
> > well. But not all of the times. There have been times where
> > virtuoso-t consumed lots of CPUs and then it has been quiet for a
> > while.
> >
> > I did not see it since then.
> >
> > I had the feeling - completely unproven - that it got better after I
> > raised the maximum amount of memory the database process may use
> > under systemsettings, then "Desktopsuche | Erweiterte Einstellungen"
> > ("desktop search | "extended settings" or something like that). I
> > now have set it to 512 MiB, I think it was 64 MiB initially. I
> > thought 512 MiB wouldn´t be too much considering that the laptop has
> > 8 GiB.
>
> I increased already before posting from 512 MiB to 1024 MiB. I did not
> see a change.

Hmmm... I am out of ideas, except for: Maybe try:

http://userbase.kde.org/Akonadi#High_CPU_or_Memory_usage

It might be applicable with KDEPIM 1 version 4.4.5 as its packaged in
Debian as well.

> > Otherwise you can try disabling desktop search or wait till the
> > initial scan is over.
>
> For me it looks like on my stystem, after restarting the system nepomuk
> starts indexing again from scratch, even when it seems to have
> completed the indexing.

Hmmm, for me Nepomuk from KDE SC 4.7.2/4 is the first one which actually
works nicely. I did not look after activity after login, but I didn´t
noticed that Nepomuk hogs my CPU.

I reduced the number of indexed files considerably by excluding some
directories like "Mail" which holds all the mails from my POP3 accounts -
I still do not use IMAP - cause I think that with KDEPIM 2 mail will be
indexed via Nepomuk separately anyway. I think local mail files from KDEPIM
should be excluded from file indexing automatically, I do not need two mail
indexes.

Currently I have about 193400 files in the Nepomuk index of about 1,4 GiB
and Nepomuk is completely quiet.

Did you make sure that all the depencing of Nepomuk was updated as well?
Virtuoso, streamanalyzer, soprano…

Ciao,
--
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kde-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 201201041138.39338.Martin@lichtvoll.de">http://lists.debian.org/201201041138.39338.Martin@lichtvoll.de

Am Mittwoch, 4. Januar 2012 schrieb Martin Steigerwald:
> > > Otherwise you can try disabling desktop search or wait till the
> > > initial scan is over.
> >
> >
> >
> > For me it looks like on my stystem, after restarting the system
> > nepomuk starts indexing again from scratch, even when it seems to
> > have completed the indexing.
>
> Hmmm, for me Nepomuk from KDE SC 4.7.2/4 is the first one which
> actually works nicely. I did not look after activity after login, but
> I didn´t noticed that Nepomuk hogs my CPU.

From reading a mail of Sebastian to the nepomuk list:

Are you sure that the initial indexing has completed? With Nepomuk as of
KDE SC 4.7 it took days on my ThinkPad T520 with Intel SSD 320. But then
it also used way less resources at any given time. It seems to me that
Nepomuk now is more careful not to interfere with user activity and uses
less of the system resources.

The only thing spiking on CPU usage was virtuoso-t, but as said I didn´t
see it anymore after raising from 64 MiB to 512 MiB maximum memory size
for it. Could be a coincidence. Maybe the intiial indexing has completed
by that time and therefore things have been quite since then.

--
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kde-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 201201041155.33582.Martin@lichtvoll.de">http://lists.debian.org/201201041155.33582.Martin@lichtvoll.de

Am Mittwoch, 4. Januar 2012 schrieb Martin Steigerwald:
> Am Sonntag, 1. Januar 2012 schrieb Rainer Dorsch:
[…]
> > > Otherwise you can try disabling desktop search or wait till the
> > > initial scan is over.
> >
> > For me it looks like on my stystem, after restarting the system
> > nepomuk starts indexing again from scratch, even when it seems to
> > have completed the indexing.
>
> Hmmm, for me Nepomuk from KDE SC 4.7.2/4 is the first one which
> actually works nicely. I did not look after activity after login, but
> I didn´t noticed that Nepomuk hogs my CPU.

I now had a closer look and after the last login I got this:

merkaba:~> top
top - 18:34:00 up 23:26, 6 users, load average: 0.41, 0.38, 0.45
Tasks: 236 total, 2 running, 234 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
%Cpu(s): 2.3 us, 1.6 sy, 21.2 ni, 74.7 id, 0.2 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si,
0.0 st
Kb Mem: 7970220 total, 7754256 used, 215964 free, 240416 buffers
Kb Swap: 12582908 total, 138844 used, 12444064 free, 4691656 cached

PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
2412 martin 39 19 791m 627m 4648 S 68.6 8.1 401:14.47 virtuoso-t
21310 martin 39 19 423m 22m 17m S 5.3 0.3 0:00.16
nepomukindexer

This looks pretty insane. 400 minutes of Intel Sandybridge i5 mobile CPU
time. I see Nepomuk seems to be indexing some stuff, but as far as I am
aware I didn´t put much new files in my home directory.

And when I look at the status display in the system config module for
Nepomuk I see that it is indexing files it should have already done before.
So either it didn´t index this on the initial scan for some reason, maybe
the initial scan was aborted... or it indexes the files again. But then the
size of my Nepomuk datastore and the amount of files in the index raise
while it is scanning these old files so it seems to be putting some new
search data in there.

I now have about 216850 files in a datastore of 2,0 GB.

Well I will leave it running for now.

I restart my KDE session in order to activate newer X.org and Intel
graphics driver releases. Lets see whether it does the complete scan once
again.

--
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kde-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 201201051841.37181.Martin@lichtvoll.de">http://lists.debian.org/201201051841.37181.Martin@lichtvoll.de

On Thursday 05 January 2012 18:41:36 Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> And when I look at the status display in the system config module for
> Nepomuk I see that it is indexing files it should have already done
> before. So either it didn´t index this on the initial scan for some
> reason, maybe the initial scan was aborted... or it indexes the files
> again. But then the size of my Nepomuk datastore and the amount of files
> in the index raise while it is scanning these old files so it seems to be
> putting some new search data in there.
>
> I now have about 216850 files in a datastore of 2,0 GB.

With 4.6.5 nepomuk was working quite nicely on my system (Debian Sid on amd64, 4 cores, 8GB RAM).
After logging into KDE, nepomuk did a quick search (I guess to check whether the indices were still
up to date) and then the icon disappeared again. And I could find almost all files on my system
(password protected pdf was an exception).

After upgrading to 4.7.x that all changed for the worse :-(
After logging in, nepomuk started indexing file over and over again, including files which it had
already processed. It only found a small section of files in my home directory. Since then I've
removed the smb-shares I had mounted in my home directory (work and media files), completely deleted
nepomuk's index (about 1,8 GB), left my pc on over night so nepomuk would have plenty of time to
complete the initial indexing ... nothing seemed to work. Also lots of files were not found. If
nepomuk was still indexing it could've explained it, but it was idle.
Also applied the 'trick' as described in http://trueg.wordpress.com/2011/12/05/manually-forcing-the-
re-indexing-of-folders-is-easy/ and triggered it for my 'reference' folder (which I used to test
whether nepomuk started 'working' again). Still, no dice.

About 2 days ago, everything returned to 'normal' again, meaning only a short indexing after logging
in and it finds all (?) files in my home folder again. I now have 5691 files indexed, consuming 180 MB
of data.
But I have no clue why. There were some updates (logically, since I'm running Sid) but none KDE
related.

I do consider what happened after upgrading to 4.7,x a bug, but didn't report it since all I could
say was "It's not working", which doesn't help anyone.
What I would really like, are ways to figure out why it isn't (wasn't) working properly. Any pointers
in that direction are much appreciated, since I like nepomuk when it's working and when it's not I
want to be able to write a proper bug report.

Regards,
Diederik


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kde-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 201201060041.36778.didi.debian@cknow.org">http://lists.debian.org/201201060041.36778.didi.debian@cknow.org


Fri Jan 6 02:30:01 2012
Return-path: <bounce-debian-devel=tom=linux-archive.org@lists.debian.org>
Envelope-to: tom@linux-archive.org
Delivery-date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 01:43:12 +0200
Received: from liszt.debian.org ([82.195.75.100]:55600)
by s2.java-tips.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.69)
(envelope-from <bounce-debian-devel=tom=linux-archive.org@lists.debian.org>)
id 1Riwxj-0000fx-Iy
for tom@linux-archive.org; Fri, 06 Jan 2012 01:43:12 +0200
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by liszt.debian.org (Postfix) with QMQP
id A314E13A7572; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 23:43:31 +0000 (UTC)
Old-Return-Path: <martinez.faneyth@gmail.com>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on liszt.debian.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.9 required=4.0 tests=FOURLA,PGPSIGNATURE,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearnúiled version=3.2.5
X-Original-To: lists-debian-devel@liszt.debian.org
Delivered-To: lists-debian-devel@liszt.debian.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by liszt.debian.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E61F913A74BF
for <lists-debian-devel@liszt.debian.org>; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 23:43:24 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.debian.org with policy bank en-ht
X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.9 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3
tests=[BAYES_00=-2, FOURLA=0.1, PGPSIGNATURE=-5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
autolearn=ham
Received: from liszt.debian.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (lists.debian.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 2525)
with ESMTP id CYsX1deXVWP4 for <lists-debian-devel@liszt.debian.org>;
Thu, 5 Jan 2012 23:43:17 +0000 (UTC)
X-policyd-weight: using cached result; rate: -7
Received: from mail-qy0-f175.google.com (mail-qy0-f175.google.com [209.85.216.175])
(using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
(Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority" (not verified))
by liszt.debian.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8531913A74E2
for <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 23:43:14 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by qcqw6 with SMTP id w6so595789qcq.6
for <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>; Thu, 05 Jan 2012 15:42:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=message-id:date:from:reply-torganization:user-agent:mime-version
:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type;
bh=l3h1MMTVIu0J78C820C3XNsEGPKXQOafh1XSDmWKQDg=;
b=TeTyntdsTEp8MQ1OJ7XOL8W4lSV6lteAr1pF/fjYv7f09/DUhk5LtqoYi9d3mUo6Qj
/lnPu6rBWdJTgRGkTj54pu/ocWhuzDALcdQYjUstYNajSHQXg6HzdhLCTau98higolcR
EtHjaBC1BhiTKhx+sN2rRfxBjd7xaTnQO1RM4Received: by 10.229.76.223 with SMTP id d31mr1440399qck.123.1325806969520;
Thu, 05 Jan 2012 15:42:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.0.56] ([190.204.236.73])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id h6sm35793819qap.2.2012.01.05.15.42.45
(version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
Thu, 05 Jan 2012 15:42:48 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4F0634F7.5080205@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 19:10:39 -0430
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Luis_Alejandro_Martínez_Faneyth? <martinez.faneyth@gmail.com>
Reply-To: martinez.faneyth@gmail.com
Organization: http://www.huntingbears.com.ve/
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.24) Gecko/20111114 Icedove/3.1.16
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Sune Vuorela <sune@debian.org>, 652464@bugs.debian.org,
debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#652464: ITP: aguilas -- A web-based LDAP user management
system
References: <20111217134822.10890.2219.reportbug@OKComputer> <201112172149.16597.sune@debian.org> <4EED19EB.9010604@gmail.com> <20111217225432.GA27675@connexer.com>
In-Reply-To: <20111217225432.GA27675@connexer.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature";
boundary="------------enigA65C86E87EB2E6232259CB3B"
X-Rc-Virus: 2007-09-13_01
X-Rc-Spam: 2008-11-04_01
Resent-Message-ID: <CwCNdwkqWlP.A.rQ.jWjBPB@liszt>
Resent-From: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
X-Mailing-List: <debian-devel@lists.debian.org> archive/latest/278450
X-Loop: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
List-Id: <debian-devel.lists.debian.org>
List-Post: <mailto:debian-devel@lists.debian.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 23:43:31 +0000 (UTC)

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enigA65C86E87EB2E6232259CB3B
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

After i correct all this issues, should i fill in another ITP?

On 17/12/11 18:24, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 06:08:35PM -0430, Luis Alejandro Martínez Faneyth wrote:
>> On 17/12/11 16:19, Sune Vuorela wrote:
>>>
>>> $sel_q = "SELECT * FROM NewUser"
>>> . " WHERE mail='" . $mail . "'"
>>> . " AND uid='" . $uid . "'"
>>> . " AND token='" . $token . "'"
>>> . " ORDER BY token DESC LIMIT 0,1";
>>
>> Thanks for having a look
>>
>> Well, i perform a very strict validation before that query is made.
>> Lines 20 - 54:
>>
>> http://code.google.com/p/aguilas/source/browse/NewUserDo.php#20
>> http://code.google.com/p/aguilas/source/browse/NewUserDo.php#54
>>
>> You are still scared?
>>
> I would be. Bind variables exist for a reason. Aside from that, your
> validation of email addresses is wrong:
>
> // Invalid e-mail
> } elseif (preg_match("/w+([-+.]w+)*@w+([-.]w+)*.w+([-.]w+)*/", $mail) == 0) {
>
> First off, there is nothing in the RFC that says that the email address
> must start with a letter, which your regex requires. In addition to
> that, you do not allow other allowed special characters:
>
> !#$%&'*/=?^_`{|}~"(),:;<>@[]
>
> You also don't properly check for consecutive dots, so I could pass the
> email a...b@foo.com and it pass your check, and still be wrong.
>
> What you have done is reinvent the wheel, and badly at that.
>
> If it were up to me, I would reject this package based on that one line
> of code alone.
>>
>> CODE IS POETRY
>>
> I find it terribly ironic that you have that satement in your email
> signature.
>
> Regards,
>
> -Roberto
>

--
Luis Alejandro Martínez Faneyth
Blog: http://www.huntingbears.com.ve/
Twitter/Identi.ca: @LuisAlejandro
ED51 8FE7 4107 715D 0464 8366 F614 5A95 E78D AA2E


CODE IS POETRY


--------------enigA65C86E87EB2E6232259CB3B
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJPBjT5AAoJEPYUWpXnjaouTNsP/A0+9OcFVKFPjjC14biSwlXC
OmWvE7rClmQwxEYnW1MP1x1Cnai4vYX7gy2D63SGYVbmriNDr1 kwNsPRsEjoBsmM
NdMMb0CNyoOgMyIC0TpzG5p6B+lK8E1y6vEy9Aucst466COl2b xspPWMxjGdIqtT
K4QTPK1M6/clTL7nSZWXSzwy+Vnle2G8/pF9xBoG3U5qU3oFvXYOlsUquhHI6r9t
sk0897aqsr2fE1JPGOknB72CY82cXZIt8DA12CBHV7BVCa0uzw C4LZQ5L1uLnRR9
5TRN4dVcGsfPgIyXAkEwrf0dJdQf2vIluX7zkpP9k7Gaz7dENr 2Ljf237tsxETes
GkxYSUyqzB2gIueTpP3XFF/bjI6PTzXqiX/3YgKFJ6pL5KT2biT/IHMGRTKrdX6r
nkPVfxUwvzab4CFoGECIJ6mtD17hpT4mn+1Rg4zKYvIHF6Tdzg mOXSPvZbBM261H
tTh1ECYkicHXE6f8KHpoS9sOJJ6bzxjbFIZpSNG71mqiNJNgqE 92mRK4+L6h+4wV
ITybNMtrK6R8K3VbuhL8umTXH88QxuM0mW5dV1i7QD7f0ZCOdq LDNiniSeipxH/g
U5JIc3BI5Gu+Erot9ccFlE5HAUJPgBEQ6IivwPRCWNHf5ShsRX HMlJoVyemc40a3
OtVZZDw9s+M0aLfHJoll
=LhoT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enigA65C86E87EB2E6232259CB3B--


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4F0634F7.5080205@gmail.com

Hi,


Am Wednesday 04 January 2012 schrieb Martin Steigerwald:
> Did you make sure that all the depencing of Nepomuk was updated as well?
> Virtuoso, streamanalyzer, soprano…

I double checked this, streamanalyzer seems to be the only non-
sid/experimental component from these, I run wheezy apart from the kde stuff:

rd@blackbox:~$ apt-cache policy libstreamanalyzer0
libstreamanalyzer0:
Installiert: 0.7.6-2
Kandidat: 0.7.6-2
Versionstabelle:
0.7.7-1 0
300 http://ftp-stud.fht-esslingen.de/debian/ sid/main i386 Packages
*** 0.7.6-2 0
500 http://ftp-stud.fht-esslingen.de/debian/ wheezy/main i386 Packages
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
rd@blackbox:~$

I try to update this component to the sid version.

Maybe narrowing down the data to be indexed helps to narrow down the problem.

Thanks,
Rainer

--
Rainer Dorsch
http://bokomoko.de/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kde-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 201201062250.40003.ml@bokomoko.de">http://lists.debian.org/201201062250.40003.ml@bokomoko.de

Maybe you people read my thread in this list but I would just like to say that I have a quite old CPU (Athlon XP) and after upgrading from 4.6.5 to 4.7.4 virtuoso was simply hanging the desktop as the processor wouldn't cope with its*demanding*but as soon as I cleared my KDE settings (/tmp /var/tmp and ~/.kde - could be done only for nepomuk/virtuoso related stuff), virtuoso's working really well, almost unnoticed.
So your problems may well be upgrade related.

Am Samstag, 7. Januar 2012 schrieb Iki Sham:
> Maybe you people read my thread in this list but I would just like to
> say that I have a quite old CPU (Athlon XP) and after upgrading from
> 4.6.5 to 4.7.4 virtuoso was simply hanging the desktop as the
> processor wouldn't cope with its demanding but as soon as I cleared my
> KDE settings (/tmp /var/tmp and ~/.kde - could be done only for
> nepomuk/virtuoso related stuff), virtuoso's working really well,
> almost unnoticed.
> So your problems may well be upgrade related.

I deleted the Nepomuk index on the upgrade, since with KDE SC 4.6.5
Nepomuk strigi/streamanalyzer crashed anyway during working through my
home directory.

But well now its quiet again for me. I get an occasional burst of activity
of mainly virtuoso-t it seems and then its quiet again. Maybe thats
garbage collection or so.

--
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kde-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 201201071223.11786.Martin@lichtvoll.de">http://lists.debian.org/201201071223.11786.Martin@lichtvoll.de