nepomuk

[O. Sinclair]

On 17/06/2010 02:04, D. R. Evans wrote:
> Clay Weber said the following at 06/16/2010 04:39 PM :
>
>>
>> Don't remove it, just shut it off. You won't loose any functionality really,
>> unless you use desktop searches (which include file *contents* as well),
>> regular searches fork fine without it.
>
> Well I would really like to have a usable desktop search, so I don't mind
> putting up with a bit of initial pain. I think I'll give it until tomorrow
> morning. If it's still consuming everything then, I'll switch it off.
>
> I guess the nepomuk in lucid must be very different from the one in karmic,
> since it seems to be re-indexing so much. But that's not a bad thing, since
> desktop search in karmic was, unfortunately, laughable (if one was in a
> laughing mood, which I admit I rarely was when desktop search returned no
> hits for items that I knew existed -- or, worse, a random subset of files
> with hits). I have some hope that after all this work, the result will be a
> desktop search system that is useful.
>
> I have it set up to index everything under ~, which comes to ~500GB of data
> in about 1,000,000 files. That seems reaonable to me, but maybe I have a
> different idea of reasonableness from the KDE developers.
>
> I don't think I'd find it so annoying if nepomuk figured out that it was
> consuming the machine and throttled itself back. I suppose I could force it
> to do so myself with nice and ionice, but really a user shouldn't have to
> be fiddling with changing the priority of daemons.

With a disc sufficiently much smaller than yours Strigi/Nepomuk is still 
indexing a week down the line - however this laptop stays switched off 
during nights (hmmm should perhaps leave it on to finalise?). I have 
around 85 GB of data and have "unticked" nepomuk on about 10 of those

Sinclair