Bug 129634 - (RC3) RemoteLogOperation.LogEntryCache needs 19 MB
Summary: (RC3) RemoteLogOperation.LogEntryCache needs 19 MB
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Platform
Classification: Eclipse Project
Component: CVS (show other bugs)
Version: 3.2   Edit
Hardware: PC Windows XP
: P3 major (vote)
Target Milestone: 3.2 RC3   Edit
Assignee: Bogdan Gheorghe CLA
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords: performance
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2006-02-27 14:34 EST by Markus Keller CLA
Modified: 2006-05-03 14:59 EDT (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments
Patch (1.03 KB, patch)
2006-05-03 08:42 EDT, Michael Valenta CLA
no flags Details | Diff

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Markus Keller CLA 2006-02-27 14:34:34 EST
I20060223-1656

After running for about a day, I made a memory snapshot of my development
Eclipse (ZRH plugins from CVS, dependencies imported as binary).

I found 3 instances of RemoteLogOperation.LogEntryCache, which retained 6.2MB, 12.8MB, and 2KB of memory. As far as I see as a user, log entries are only cached for the active editor and the changes in the Synchronize view. I had no editor open and 4 incoming and 8 outgoing changes.
=> I guess there are a lot more entries retained than required.

Since a lot of these Strings are probably duplicates, if might be worth trying to share them to lower memory consumption.
Comment 1 Michael Valenta CLA 2006-04-25 17:26:48 EDT
We've done some priliminary profiling and haven't seen any leaks. We'll do another pass during the RC3 test pass to make sure.
Comment 2 Michael Valenta CLA 2006-05-03 08:42:47 EDT
Created attachment 40192 [details]
Patch

There was a leak. We were never clearing log entries that were no longer relevant.
Comment 3 Mike Wilson CLA 2006-05-03 09:39:06 EDT
+1 to adding the patch. please verify that this fixes the original problem.
Comment 4 Michael Valenta CLA 2006-05-03 10:39:26 EDT
Fixed reviewed by Bogdan and released. Bug 79697 is on this same subject and I have added a comment that more savings could be had by sharing strings.
Comment 5 Jeff McAffer CLA 2006-05-03 14:59:03 EDT
+1