2 Beagle q's - and surprisingly not cpu thrashing ones - Suse

This is a discussion on 2 Beagle q's - and surprisingly not cpu thrashing ones - Suse ; 1) I have 5 beagle/IndexHelper.exe processes running - why 5? All have STAT S N (sleep, nice) using almost 80mb ram (inc. the daemon) 2) I noticed the announcement of a 0.3.1 release and yet the Suse build service only ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: 2 Beagle q's - and surprisingly not cpu thrashing ones

  1. 2 Beagle q's - and surprisingly not cpu thrashing ones

    1) I have 5 beagle/IndexHelper.exe processes running - why 5? All have STAT
    S N (sleep, nice) using almost 80mb ram (inc. the daemon)

    2) I noticed the announcement of a 0.3.1 release and yet the Suse build
    service only offers 2.18, does anyone know why there's not been a upgrade
    made available? Isn't Suse a sponsor of Beagle?

    PS - I know nobody really likes it but it is the only indexer I'm aware of
    that has a kio (I can not get kio-find, used by tracker, to compile)

    --
    Suse 10.3 x64, Kde 3.5.8, Gnome 2.20.0, Opera 9.x weekly

  2. Re: 2 Beagle q's - and surprisingly not cpu thrashing ones

    Bill P wrote:

    > 1) I have 5 beagle/IndexHelper.exe processes running - why 5? All have
    > STAT S N (sleep, nice) using almost 80mb ram (inc. the daemon)
    >
    > 2) I noticed the announcement of a 0.3.1 release and yet the Suse build
    > service only offers 2.18, does anyone know why there's not been a upgrade
    > made available? Isn't Suse a sponsor of Beagle?
    >
    > PS - I know nobody really likes it but it is the only indexer I'm aware of
    > that has a kio (I can not get kio-find, used by tracker, to compile)
    >


    One would think so by the way it is shoved on us upon first login. I removed
    as much Beagle crap as I could because it's such a hog and I get tired of
    listening to my drive thrash constantly. I have always been happy using the
    locate command to find anything in my system and the db is updated by cron
    already. Add this to the growing list of solutions looking for a problem.
    It was only a matter of time before Linux's increasing popularity would
    spawn such awful crap as SELinux and Apparmour and now Beagle. Reminds me
    of what you'd get on a Norton Utilities suite.


    Dave

  3. Re: 2 Beagle q's - and surprisingly not cpu thrashing ones

    In <47772998$0$504$815e3792@news.qwest.net> David W Studeman:

    [Snip...]

    > spawn such awful crap as SELinux and Apparmour and now Beagle. Reminds me
    > of what you'd get on a Norton Utilities suite.


    I generally agree about Beagle, but not so much SELinux and AppArmor.

    IMO, Beagle's mostly about user convenience; SELinux and AppArmor are more
    about system security. It's an important distinction; I appreciate vendors
    offering security enhancement *options* (watch linewrap):

    http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/tip/
    0,289483,sid39_gci1281393,00.html

    I would have appreciated Beagle as an *option* during install, but it was
    irksome to find it unannounced hogging (my limited) resources afterward.

    JMO; YMMV...

    --
    Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
    Pardon any bogus email addresses (wookie) in place for spambots.
    Really, it's (wyrd) at airmail, dotted with net. DO NOT SPAM IT.
    Kids jumping ship? Looking to hire an old-school type? Email me.

  4. Re: 2 Beagle q's - and surprisingly not cpu thrashing ones

    On 2007-12-30, David W Studeman wrote:
    > Bill P wrote:
    >
    >> 1) I have 5 beagle/IndexHelper.exe processes running - why 5? All have
    >> STAT S N (sleep, nice) using almost 80mb ram (inc. the daemon)
    >>
    >> 2) I noticed the announcement of a 0.3.1 release and yet the Suse build
    >> service only offers 2.18, does anyone know why there's not been a upgrade
    >> made available? Isn't Suse a sponsor of Beagle?
    >>
    >> PS - I know nobody really likes it but it is the only indexer I'm aware of
    >> that has a kio (I can not get kio-find, used by tracker, to compile)
    >>

    >
    > One would think so by the way it is shoved on us upon first login. I removed
    > as much Beagle crap as I could because it's such a hog and I get tired of
    > listening to my drive thrash constantly.


    I'm constantly wondering these experiences with Beagle/Kerry.

    I have the beagle daemon running and Kerry (KDE) finds anything in
    seconds.

    I have all my 8 (local and NFS) partitions, a bit over 1 terabyte,
    indexed.

    Beagled is using zero point something CPU at any given time.
    Firefox for example is using 31 right now while I'm on cli typing this.

    My proc is 1.500 MHz Athlon XP and I have i GB of RAM.


    Vahis
    --
    "The only thing more expensive than training is the lack of it"
    Henry Ford

  5. Re: 2 Beagle q's - and surprisingly not cpu thrashing ones

    Vahis wrote:

    > On 2007-12-30, David W Studeman wrote:
    >> Bill P wrote:
    >>
    >>> 1) I have 5 beagle/IndexHelper.exe processes running - why 5? All have
    >>> STAT S N (sleep, nice) using almost 80mb ram (inc. the daemon)
    >>>
    >>> 2) I noticed the announcement of a 0.3.1 release and yet the Suse build
    >>> service only offers 2.18, does anyone know why there's not been a
    >>> upgrade made available? Isn't Suse a sponsor of Beagle?
    >>>
    >>> PS - I know nobody really likes it but it is the only indexer I'm aware
    >>> of that has a kio (I can not get kio-find, used by tracker, to compile)
    >>>

    >>
    >> One would think so by the way it is shoved on us upon first login. I
    >> removed as much Beagle crap as I could because it's such a hog and I get
    >> tired of listening to my drive thrash constantly.

    >
    > I'm constantly wondering these experiences with Beagle/Kerry.
    >
    > I have the beagle daemon running and Kerry (KDE) finds anything in
    > seconds.
    >
    > I have all my 8 (local and NFS) partitions, a bit over 1 terabyte,
    > indexed.
    >
    > Beagled is using zero point something CPU at any given time.
    > Firefox for example is using 31 right now while I'm on cli typing this.
    >
    > My proc is 1.500 MHz Athlon XP and I have i GB of RAM.
    >
    >
    > Vahis



    It's not the cpu load that is an issue here, it's the constant thrashing of
    the drive that drives me nuts. It's like having my every move recorded. I
    sneeze, Kerry spools my drive, I fart, Kerry spools my drive. I had to kill
    it, it was relentless. There isn't a file that I can't find within two
    seconds by simply typing locate . Basically it is just reinventing
    the wheel for people who can't fathom using a terminal but don't mind
    wasting read/write cycles on this.


    Dave




+ Reply to Thread