|
Description
Right now photo managers, and music managers crawl the filesystem just like a desktop search engine, and then build their own database. Instead let the desktop search engine do this. Using tracker as a backend would allow users freedom to choose their frontend application, while at the same time keeping all media organized on the filesystem.
Attachments
No attachments.
Duplicates
Comments
|
tf wrote on the 28 Feb 08 at 15:49
| |
Tracker is the first thing I completely remove on a fresh Ubuntu install, as it completely kills the system performance.
|
|
jjongsma wrote on the 28 Feb 08 at 17:50
| |
I can't count how many times I've wondered what the hell was going on with my system, only to find trackerd pegging the CPU at 100%, for what I can only assume has been hours judging by when the sluggishness started.
|
|
markba wrote on the 28 Feb 08 at 18:34
| |
Please include a gThumb-plugin so you can search for photo's with one interface: tracker.
|
|
blue.note wrote on the 28 Feb 08 at 18:46
| |
A unified indexing service would be great, but I'm not sure how much Ubuntu can be in control of this.
|
|
dark wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 00:23
| |
I agree with TF, whenever I get a new Ubuntu install I totally remove Tracker because it destroys speed on older machines with slower HDs and also manages to slow down newer machines too.
|
|
pt123 wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 04:01
|
Please no, I don't want to index by whole file system. At worst give an option. If you work in a corporate environment you will know indexing OS's are a big no no.
Tracker also has ruined the search feature in Nautilus.
http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/476/
Don't rely on projects like Tracker which is rarely updated. It took 3 months to go from 0.63 to 0.64, The 0.64 version hasn't even been back ported to Gutsy.
Gnome needs to stop relying on projects that are lifeless.
|
|
Vadim P. wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 13:59
| |
I hate tracker (all it does it abuse my HD), so, no please.
|
|
monreal wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 14:04
| |
dcsmith77, I'm sure you never worked on any application that has a data storage of some sort and even remotely cares about performance? What you suggest would make things incredibly slow... Different types of applications require different kind of data storage and even different implementations of the same app type may require totally different data storage. There's no "one fits all" solution here.
|
|
dcsmith77 wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 17:40
|
monreal:
Funny you should say this. Unfortunately it's incorrect. I've been a developer. Here's the thing, even if the application kept a local cache table, this would remove the crawl procedure from all apps. Secondly it would always recognize that the master copy was in tracker. To see a sample, try paperbox. The initial db build is quite long, but once it's finished the app is quite responsive. The point being why do I have 2 extra databases for music and photos when I have a central store as well.
|
|
qaaq wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 18:59
|
BeOS did this right, ten years ago.
Indexing was a file-system feature. All metadata was stored in fs attributes, on EVERYTHING. There was a single process called the Registrar that knew about many different 'legacy' file formats and would extract data from them into standard FS attributes.
It didn't matter if you renamed your JPEG to .DOC - double clicking it would still open an image viewer, without 'sniffing' the format at launch time.
All you people saying "no" have no idea what you're negating. Tracker is not the greatest *implementation*. Search *will* become pervasive, because it must. I just hope that the Nautilus folks get on board and start depending on FS attributes, etc.
|
|
elias1884 wrote on the 1 Mar 08 at 00:42
| |
I agree!
|
|
wolfier wrote on the 1 Mar 08 at 04:09
|
@qaaq
I used BeOS and I loved it and I still vote this down, because Tracker is not only "not the greatest" implementation, it's a downright *disastrous* implementation!!
Do it right or don't do it. It's a job for file system writers, not Ubuntu maintainers.
|
|
rawsausage wrote on the 1 Mar 08 at 13:11
| |
You can tune how aggressive the Tracker is. If you set the priority low enough it won't kill your performance.
|
|
ketilwaa wrote on the 1 Mar 08 at 16:17
| |
I agree in principle, so I gave this a +1. Not sure if *tracker* is the right app for the job though...
|
|
DavidONE wrote on the 1 Mar 08 at 20:12
| |
I voted up because I agree with the idea in principle, but Tracker needs a lot of work on performance, stability and bugs before it's man enough for the job.
|
|
jiu wrote on the 2 Mar 08 at 09:57
| |
might be a good idea WHEN TRACKER WORKS. right now, I would certainly not like seeing it linked to any more parts of the system. right now I thinkn tracker should be completely taken away from the default install while work is done on it.
|
|
ulrich wrote on the 3 Mar 08 at 13:27
|
i also voted this up, BUT:
just to have a conversation aboout the issue!
on my system (athlonXP 2600+) tracker is just a PITA. but having tracker properly implemented would be a good thing nonetheless.
|
|
allbluedream wrote on the 4 Mar 08 at 21:11
|
A central search implementation is nice, but currently tracker is not doing the job. People here are arguing over tracker; but the idea is good.
Change the title, maybe.
|
|
HDave wrote on the 13 Mar 08 at 13:23
|
My understanding is that tracker is intended already to be the backend of a unified indexer for "home" files (updatedb/locate for system files). So it can already act as a backend.
The fact that tracker can be a pig is a problem with tracker.
The fact that these other apps don't use it is a problem with those apps.
|
|
Ralf.Nieuwenhuijsen wrote on the 16 Mar 08 at 03:46
|
People, please don't bash tracker.
Technically, the issue with performance with tracker has to do with how much ext3 sucks. Some of those issues will be gone when ext3 gets mounted differently.
Currently, what happens is that linux saves a last-read-timestamp on every file. So when tracker indexes it, it also has to write it. Hence the trashing. This has become worse over time. Although most of you associate this with tracker, all file-io with lots of small files is horrible at the moment in linux. Nothing tracker-specific about it. The only reason to get rid of this is to minimize all file-io. One way to do this is to disable tracker, but programs like rhythmbox, f-spot, firefox will still trash your drive a little. Also by default io-nice and nice is not synchronized at all. So all file-io can make your system freeze. That needs to be fixed, but it has nothing to do with tracker.
Secondly, to save memory and prevent defragmentation, tracker writes temporary files and then merges them. The only reason other indexers (luscene) seem to trash less is because they work slower, because they are not as optimized. You can configure tracker to be just as slow. The indexing done by applications themselves is usually so bad (rhythmbox, f-spot) it eats cpu instead of IO. The reason it doesn't annoy you as much is because you are in control when those applications index. The new tracker will have a tray icon to pause and to easily set the performance penalty.
Finally: tracker is and will remain part of gnome. So you can expect all official gnome-apps to take advantage of it sooner or later.
So people, disabling tracker is just a placebo effect. As are so many so called 'optimizations' and 'tweaks'.
|
|
pym wrote on the 16 Mar 08 at 12:28
|
Ralf.Nieuwenhuijsen says:
> tracker is and will remain part of gnome. So you can expect all official gnome-apps to take advantage of it sooner or later.
That's the reason why I voted UP
|
|
coryg wrote on the 20 Mar 08 at 00:32
| |
genius idea
|
|
drinkypoo wrote on the 9 May 08 at 14:12
|
"Technically, the issue with performance with tracker has to do with how much ext3 sucks. Some of those issues will be gone when ext3 gets mounted differently."
It sucks on XFS, too.
In fact, it stinks on ice.
I'm off to go search for and if not found suggest an idea to allow to easily avoid allowing tracker to index. I don't feel a need to remove it from my system, but I use google desktop to index and it is about a million times faster and less abusive to my system, as hilarious as that is.
Someday when Linux gets a decent disk I/O scheduler then perhaps tracker indexing will be OK. (I'm not that mad at Linux, no other OS seems to have one either.) Until then less-rude applications will have to handle search. And if you use a decent filesystem (hint: not ext3) then just doing a find is not so painful (especially if you know how to use your search tool... e.g. find(1).) I want what tracker can give me. I just don't think it should ever kick my computer's ass when I'm trying to use it.
|
|
sonnik wrote on the 23 May 08 at 12:09
|
okay, IF tracker is diabled by default, at least on laptop-systems
it's using too much ressources i want to deciede on my own, if i want usb-drives to be searched automaticially
|
|
magnus-malmsten wrote on the 5 Jul 08 at 15:56
| |
I have not found anything with this Tracker tool. slocate was great !!!!
|
Post your comment
|
