This Bugzilla instance is a read-only archive of historic NetBeans bug reports. To report a bug in NetBeans please follow the project's instructions for reporting issues.

Bug 45054 - [perf] Long time spent in BootReader.read during first start
Summary: [perf] Long time spent in BootReader.read during first start
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: java
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Unsupported (show other bugs)
Version: 4.x
Hardware: PC Linux
: P3 blocker (vote)
Assignee: Martin Matula
URL:
Keywords: PERFORMANCE
Depends on:
Blocks: 49990
  Show dependency tree
 
Reported: 2004-06-16 19:15 UTC by _ rkubacki
Modified: 2006-03-24 09:47 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: DEFECT
Exception Reporter:

Attachments
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description _ rkubacki 2004-06-16 19:15:58 UTC 
This actually refers to the first start only but
on my Linux laptop with P4 2GHz/1GB RAM the method
BootReader.read takes a lot of time. It is more
than 3 seconds (numbers varies as other activities
are running simultaneously). 650-800ms takes
document parsing, the rest is split into next methods.

Perhaps we can cut out this and build this during
build? Or is there anything special why this needs
to be run during first session?
Comment 1 Tomas Hurka 2004-06-22 08:41:43 UTC 
Moved to new subcomponent java/javacore.
Comment 2 Martin Matula 2004-07-16 23:08:41 UTC 
Building during the build is possible. But I am not sure whether it is
worth the effort. Booting is currently done on the backgroud aprox. 2
seconds after the first startup. I don't think it is noticable to the
user.
Comment 3 Martin Matula 2004-07-19 15:42:46 UTC 
lowering to P3 after agreement with perf. team
Comment 4 Martin Matula 2005-10-14 06:51:04 UTC 
IMO this is not an issue anymore. The storage files are now pre-built and the
master storage gets initialized in the background about 2 seconds after the
first startup. We do not plan to fix this.
Comment 5 _ rkubacki 2005-10-14 09:02:33 UTC 
make sense