0000809: SUMo loads too many times

(0000534)
Kyle_Katarn (administrator)
2009-06-09 11:59

Loaded twice in 1 second....

Info [09-06-09 12:00:47] Checking...
Info [09-06-09 12:00:47] Loading finished : 51 items loaded
Info [09-06-09 12:00:47] Creating database backup
Info [09-06-09 12:00:46] Loading...
Info [09-06-09 12:00:46] Preparing check operation
Info [09-06-09 12:00:46] Loading finished : 51 items loaded
Info [09-06-09 12:00:46] Creating database backup
Info [09-06-09 12:00:46] Loading...
Info [09-06-09 12:00:46] Scanning FFDShow Codec...
Info [09-06-09 12:00:46] Scanning XVid Codec...
Info [09-06-09 12:00:46] Scanning DivX Codec...
Info [09-06-09 12:00:46] Scanning Java...
Info [09-06-09 12:00:46] Scanning Shockwave...
Info [09-06-09 12:00:46] Scanning AIR...
Info [09-06-09 12:00:46] Scanning Flash...
Info [09-06-09 12:00:46] Scanning (light)...

(0000549)
Kyle_Katarn (administrator)
2009-08-12 00:39

Have you unchecked the "reload before check" setting ?

(0000573)
godarts (reporter)
2010-04-15 21:29

I have this trouble.
With unchecked button "reload before check" list loads 2 times. If button check - 3 times.

(0000576)
Kyle_Katarn (administrator)
2010-04-15 21:50

OK, back to the top of the list. Will be fixed quickly.

(0000780)
Kyle_Katarn (administrator)
2012-05-17 14:24

Does it still occurs with v3.0.7.153 ?

(0000796)
Kyle_Katarn (administrator)
2012-05-20 14:20

http://www.kcsoftwares.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=114&p=445#p445 [^]

(0000838)
poutnikg (reporter)
2012-06-03 09:14

Just to add to have it explicitly stated even here:
Manual addition of file/folder should not need
the foreground GUI reload of the whole list.

(0000849)
poutnikg (reporter)
2012-06-03 19:28

I think one automatic application list reload per session could be enough.

(0000887)
poutnikg (reporter)
2012-06-19 08:18

All reloads following initial startup one
should be either explicitly requested by a user,
either advised but approved by user.

But former is better.
Or option to choose which variant.

(0000942)
dinovom (reporter)
2012-07-12 19:44
edited on: 2012-07-12 19:50

Another thing that would be nice: cancle button of loading (especially on startup) which was there but has been removed a view versions ago!!! I don't mind if database is lost then - if i cancle i do a full scan anyway afterwars so startup scan is completely useless!!!

Similar Bugs: http://www.kcsoftwares.com/bugs/view.php?id=533 [^] http://www.kcsoftwares.com/bugs/view.php?id=1329 [^]

Removed cause of http://www.kcsoftwares.com/bugs/view.php?id=1581 [^] http://www.kcsoftwares.com/bugs/view.php?id=1605 [^] - sorry but then ppl shouldnt cancle??? You can make a warning that DB will be lost but dont remove it!!!

(0000990)
poutnikg (reporter)
2012-07-23 07:56
edited on: 2012-07-23 07:59

Are there problems in tracking of nature of the issue, e.g. reproducibility ?

Do you need other feedback aside of the forum provided log ?

It is very annoying behavior apps load being done twice before check,
if reload before check is set to OFF ( start up one and before check one).
Even 3 times - twice before check if set it ON.

(0001263)
poutnikg (reporter)
2012-10-19 14:40

Is it not reproducible,is is hard to implement,
or just nobody is bothered by it but me ? :-D

SUMO starting - 1st load
SUMO Scanning - 2nd load
SUMO checking - 3rd load ( and optionally 4th load
if you insist on load before check )

I have about 320 applications and about 550 one before scan is filtered.
3 loads takes quite a lot of time.

As an option SUMO could work in optionally fully automated mode:

It would scan applications,
examine and filter the scan list
and check for the updates,
all in the single step, without even single button click of the user.

(0001264)
poutnikg (reporter)
2012-10-19 14:56

(0001265)
dinovom (reporter)
2012-10-19 15:22

I guess it is reproducible (happens on all system i've installed it so far), i guess many ppl are bothered by it, it shouldn't be "hard" to implement (at least an option which checks to make) but sure it would take some time to implement (as you have to change/add parts in several places of code), as well as it has not that high priority (compared to bugs, some feature-lacks, ..).

(0001266)
poutnikg (reporter)
2012-10-19 17:29
edited on: 2012-10-19 17:32

I just ... this design flaw was reported 4 years ago, by author himself.. :-)

Also in April 2010 Kyle says it will be fixed quickly..

(0001267)
bytehead (updater)
2012-10-20 13:18
edited on: 2012-10-20 13:18

For me and most people I know of, this is by far the most annoying aspect of current SUMo implementation. I think this issue should be given a much higher priority by Kyle, cause it seriously cripples user experience. There's no other as irritating bug as this one and it stands with no action for a too long time.

P.S. New features can wait... besides 0001642, of course :)

(0001268)
bytehead (updater)
2012-10-20 13:34
edited on: 2012-10-20 13:47

I also noticed SUMo usually loads much faster on the immediate subsequent runs after the first one (on the scale of 6..15 sec down from 30..90sec for about 325 filtered apps). I guess this is due to local file system caching on the OS level, but may also be due to remote caching, too -- not figured yet whether it actually does remote polling at this stage, but I presume so.

Also, the duration of the very first "cold" loading is very diverse even under the same hardware/software configuration (30 - 90 sec for me, almost idle machine state).

(0001274)
Kyle_Katarn (administrator)
2012-10-20 18:01

Hi,

I'm back. This issue is not my NUMBER ONE priority for next release.

Concerning 1st cold run being faster, i have to investigate in which extend to OS/HDD caching and how it cas be optimized by better processing by SUMo.

(0001276)
bytehead (updater)
2012-10-20 19:00

Kyle, I perfectly understand that your priorities as a developer are not always the same as regular users' priorities are -- you're trying to make a living here and we just want to make our lives/jobs a bit more convenient. But please do not underestimate usability issues, too -- for most users they are among the most significant if not the top ones. No software with serious UX issues can hope for a high popularity, despite all its other possibly coolest features. The reported issue at hand is exactly one of such problems. It annoys lots of users *every* time they use your software, which can't be good both for your business and reputation as a developer. Please get me right, I'm criticizing only because I want to help make it better: for you, myself and the whole SUMo community, current and future.

To recap: I'm not expecting it to be your #1 task for the next release, but please don't let it rust for years ;)

(0001415)
poutnikg (reporter)
2013-04-08 17:58

Rusting... :-)

(0001416)
Tythesly (reporter)
2013-04-16 20:19

ROFL... I thought it reloading a couple of times was normal XD

I do not have that bad of a problem though.... only 48 programs and its on my ssd.

(0001417)
poutnikg (reporter)
2013-04-16 20:53

With hundreds on HD it can be very annoying, even irritating.

SUMO has plenty of updates addressing proper managing of particular software.
But I have occacional feelings that Kyle perhaps does not give enough attention to the program itself.

(0001418)
Kyle_Katarn (administrator)
2013-04-16 21:40

... no I simply doesn't have much time these days !

That what it takes to be a developper during my free time and father of 2 cool daughters :)

(0001420)
poutnikg (reporter)
2013-04-17 00:33

It is perfectly understandably, Kyle. :)
It is just thinking about distribution of time you can spend on SUMO.

Issue History
Date Modified	Username	Field	Change
2008-09-28 10:13	Kyle_Katarn	New Issue
2008-09-28 10:14	Kyle_Katarn	Assigned To	=> Kyle_Katarn
2008-09-28 10:14	Kyle_Katarn	Status	new => feedback
2008-09-28 10:14	Kyle_Katarn	Status	feedback => acknowledged
2009-06-09 11:59	Kyle_Katarn	Note Added: 0000534
2009-08-12 00:39	Kyle_Katarn	Note Added: 0000549
2009-08-12 00:39	Kyle_Katarn	Status	acknowledged => feedback
2010-04-15 21:29	godarts	Note Added: 0000573
2010-04-15 21:50	Kyle_Katarn	Note Added: 0000576
2010-04-15 21:50	Kyle_Katarn	Status	feedback => assigned
2012-05-17 14:24	Kyle_Katarn	Note Added: 0000780
2012-05-17 14:24	Kyle_Katarn	Status	assigned => feedback
2012-05-20 14:20	Kyle_Katarn	Note Added: 0000796
2012-05-20 14:20	Kyle_Katarn	Status	feedback => assigned
2012-05-20 14:20	Kyle_Katarn	Status	assigned => acknowledged
2012-06-03 09:14	poutnikg	Note Added: 0000838
2012-06-03 19:28	poutnikg	Note Added: 0000849
2012-06-19 08:18	poutnikg	Note Added: 0000887
2012-07-12 19:44	dinovom	Note Added: 0000942
2012-07-12 19:47	dinovom	Note Edited: 0000942	View Revisions
2012-07-12 19:50	dinovom	Note Edited: 0000942	View Revisions
2012-07-23 07:56	poutnikg	Note Added: 0000990
2012-07-23 07:59	poutnikg	Note Edited: 0000990	View Revisions
2012-07-28 12:10	bytehead	Tag Attached: UX
2012-10-19 14:40	poutnikg	Note Added: 0001263
2012-10-19 14:41	poutnikg	Tag Attached: optimization
2012-10-19 14:41	poutnikg	Tag Attached: UI
2012-10-19 14:56	poutnikg	Note Added: 0001264
2012-10-19 15:22	dinovom	Note Added: 0001265
2012-10-19 17:29	poutnikg	Note Added: 0001266
2012-10-19 17:29	poutnikg	Note Edited: 0001266	View Revisions
2012-10-19 17:32	poutnikg	Note Edited: 0001266	View Revisions
2012-10-20 12:58	bytehead	Relationship added	related to 0001642
2012-10-20 13:18	bytehead	Note Added: 0001267
2012-10-20 13:18	bytehead	Note Edited: 0001267	View Revisions
2012-10-20 13:34	bytehead	Note Added: 0001268
2012-10-20 13:35	bytehead	Note Edited: 0001268	View Revisions
2012-10-20 13:45	bytehead	Note Edited: 0001268	View Revisions
2012-10-20 13:46	bytehead	Note Edited: 0001268	View Revisions
2012-10-20 13:47	bytehead	Note Edited: 0001268	View Revisions
2012-10-20 13:49	bytehead	Priority	normal => high
2012-10-20 13:49	bytehead	Reproducibility	have not tried => always
2012-10-20 18:01	Kyle_Katarn	Note Added: 0001274
2012-10-20 18:01	Kyle_Katarn	Priority	high => immediate
2012-10-20 18:01	Kyle_Katarn	Severity	minor => major
2012-10-20 19:00	bytehead	Note Added: 0001276
2012-12-29 19:15	Kyle_Katarn	Relationship added	related to 0001881
2013-04-08 17:58	poutnikg	Note Added: 0001415
2013-04-16 20:19	Tythesly	Note Added: 0001416
2013-04-16 20:53	poutnikg	Note Added: 0001417
2013-04-16 21:40	Kyle_Katarn	Note Added: 0001418
2013-04-17 00:33	poutnikg	Note Added: 0001420

Notes
(0000534) Kyle_Katarn (administrator) 2009-06-09 11:59	Loaded twice in 1 second.... Info [09-06-09 12:00:47] Checking... Info [09-06-09 12:00:47] Loading finished : 51 items loaded Info [09-06-09 12:00:47] Creating database backup Info [09-06-09 12:00:46] Loading... Info [09-06-09 12:00:46] Preparing check operation Info [09-06-09 12:00:46] Loading finished : 51 items loaded Info [09-06-09 12:00:46] Creating database backup Info [09-06-09 12:00:46] Loading... Info [09-06-09 12:00:46] Scanning FFDShow Codec... Info [09-06-09 12:00:46] Scanning XVid Codec... Info [09-06-09 12:00:46] Scanning DivX Codec... Info [09-06-09 12:00:46] Scanning Java... Info [09-06-09 12:00:46] Scanning Shockwave... Info [09-06-09 12:00:46] Scanning AIR... Info [09-06-09 12:00:46] Scanning Flash... Info [09-06-09 12:00:46] Scanning (light)...

(0000549) Kyle_Katarn (administrator) 2009-08-12 00:39	Have you unchecked the "reload before check" setting ?

(0000573) godarts (reporter) 2010-04-15 21:29	I have this trouble. With unchecked button "reload before check" list loads 2 times. If button check - 3 times.

(0000576) Kyle_Katarn (administrator) 2010-04-15 21:50	OK, back to the top of the list. Will be fixed quickly.

(0000780) Kyle_Katarn (administrator) 2012-05-17 14:24	Does it still occurs with v3.0.7.153 ?

(0000796) Kyle_Katarn (administrator) 2012-05-20 14:20	http://www.kcsoftwares.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=114&p=445#p445 [^]

(0000838) poutnikg (reporter) 2012-06-03 09:14	Just to add to have it explicitly stated even here: Manual addition of file/folder should not need the foreground GUI reload of the whole list.

(0000849) poutnikg (reporter) 2012-06-03 19:28	I think one automatic application list reload per session could be enough.

(0000887) poutnikg (reporter) 2012-06-19 08:18	All reloads following initial startup one should be either explicitly requested by a user, either advised but approved by user. But former is better. Or option to choose which variant.

(0000942) dinovom (reporter) 2012-07-12 19:44 edited on: 2012-07-12 19:50	Another thing that would be nice: cancle button of loading (especially on startup) which was there but has been removed a view versions ago!!! I don't mind if database is lost then - if i cancle i do a full scan anyway afterwars so startup scan is completely useless!!! Similar Bugs: http://www.kcsoftwares.com/bugs/view.php?id=533 [^] http://www.kcsoftwares.com/bugs/view.php?id=1329 [^] Removed cause of http://www.kcsoftwares.com/bugs/view.php?id=1581 [^] http://www.kcsoftwares.com/bugs/view.php?id=1605 [^] - sorry but then ppl shouldnt cancle??? You can make a warning that DB will be lost but dont remove it!!!

(0000990) poutnikg (reporter) 2012-07-23 07:56 edited on: 2012-07-23 07:59	Are there problems in tracking of nature of the issue, e.g. reproducibility ? Do you need other feedback aside of the forum provided log ? It is very annoying behavior apps load being done twice before check, if reload before check is set to OFF ( start up one and before check one). Even 3 times - twice before check if set it ON.

(0001263) poutnikg (reporter) 2012-10-19 14:40	Is it not reproducible,is is hard to implement, or just nobody is bothered by it but me ? :-D SUMO starting - 1st load SUMO Scanning - 2nd load SUMO checking - 3rd load ( and optionally 4th load if you insist on load before check ) I have about 320 applications and about 550 one before scan is filtered. 3 loads takes quite a lot of time. As an option SUMO could work in optionally fully automated mode: It would scan applications, examine and filter the scan list and check for the updates, all in the single step, without even single button click of the user.

(0001264) poutnikg (reporter) 2012-10-19 14:56	Related to http://www.kcsoftwares.com/bugs/view.php?id=1642 [^]

(0001265) dinovom (reporter) 2012-10-19 15:22	I guess it is reproducible (happens on all system i've installed it so far), i guess many ppl are bothered by it, it shouldn't be "hard" to implement (at least an option which checks to make) but sure it would take some time to implement (as you have to change/add parts in several places of code), as well as it has not that high priority (compared to bugs, some feature-lacks, ..).

(0001266) poutnikg (reporter) 2012-10-19 17:29 edited on: 2012-10-19 17:32	I just ... this design flaw was reported 4 years ago, by author himself.. :-) Also in April 2010 Kyle says it will be fixed quickly..

(0001267) bytehead (updater) 2012-10-20 13:18 edited on: 2012-10-20 13:18	For me and most people I know of, this is by far the most annoying aspect of current SUMo implementation. I think this issue should be given a much higher priority by Kyle, cause it seriously cripples user experience. There's no other as irritating bug as this one and it stands with no action for a too long time. P.S. New features can wait... besides 0001642, of course :)

(0001268) bytehead (updater) 2012-10-20 13:34 edited on: 2012-10-20 13:47	I also noticed SUMo usually loads much faster on the immediate subsequent runs after the first one (on the scale of 6..15 sec down from 30..90sec for about 325 filtered apps). I guess this is due to local file system caching on the OS level, but may also be due to remote caching, too -- not figured yet whether it actually does remote polling at this stage, but I presume so. Also, the duration of the very first "cold" loading is very diverse even under the same hardware/software configuration (30 - 90 sec for me, almost idle machine state).

(0001274) Kyle_Katarn (administrator) 2012-10-20 18:01	Hi, I'm back. This issue is not my NUMBER ONE priority for next release. Concerning 1st cold run being faster, i have to investigate in which extend to OS/HDD caching and how it cas be optimized by better processing by SUMo.

(0001276) bytehead (updater) 2012-10-20 19:00	Kyle, I perfectly understand that your priorities as a developer are not always the same as regular users' priorities are -- you're trying to make a living here and we just want to make our lives/jobs a bit more convenient. But please do not underestimate usability issues, too -- for most users they are among the most significant if not the top ones. No software with serious UX issues can hope for a high popularity, despite all its other possibly coolest features. The reported issue at hand is exactly one of such problems. It annoys lots of users every time they use your software, which can't be good both for your business and reputation as a developer. Please get me right, I'm criticizing only because I want to help make it better: for you, myself and the whole SUMo community, current and future. To recap: I'm not expecting it to be your #1 task for the next release, but please don't let it rust for years ;)

(0001415) poutnikg (reporter) 2013-04-08 17:58	Rusting... :-)

(0001416) Tythesly (reporter) 2013-04-16 20:19	ROFL... I thought it reloading a couple of times was normal XD I do not have that bad of a problem though.... only 48 programs and its on my ssd.

(0001417) poutnikg (reporter) 2013-04-16 20:53	With hundreds on HD it can be very annoying, even irritating. SUMO has plenty of updates addressing proper managing of particular software. But I have occacional feelings that Kyle perhaps does not give enough attention to the program itself.

(0001418) Kyle_Katarn (administrator) 2013-04-16 21:40	... no I simply doesn't have much time these days ! That what it takes to be a developper during my free time and father of 2 cool daughters :)

(0001420) poutnikg (reporter) 2013-04-17 00:33	It is perfectly understandably, Kyle. :) It is just thinking about distribution of time you can spend on SUMO.