Authors CurseForge

I'd like to change PerformanceFu to show the total memory used by multi-part addons.

For example, instead of

Cartographer 100k
Cartographer_Part1 100k
Cartographer_Part2 100k
Cartographer_Part3 100k
Cartographer_Part4 100k

You would see

Cartographer(4) 500k


I have made the needed change to PerformanceFu in my branched version of it which you can try:

http://svn.wowace.com/wowace/branches/FuBar_PerformanceFu/sylvanaar/

I'll add a screenshot when I get off work. Or somone can screenshot it for me.

Looking for suggestions and input on how best to implement the change.

Quote from Funkydude »

I assume you would mean an additional feature, as I like to see memory usage of modules.

Yeah, though in my current implementation, the modules are still shown. Only the core addon shows the total instead of just the core addon's memory usage.

Its currently more like this:

Cartographer(4) 500k
Cartographer_Part1 100k
Cartographer_Part2 100k
Cartographer_Part3 100k
Cartographer_Part4 100k

First of all, could you tell us why you want this change?

I'm not a fan of the hackish way this has been implemented.

My first two concerns are:
1. Memory consumed by the core only is not available any more.
2. There's no option to toggle the behavior.

Those can be fixed, I guess, but let's discuss the implementation. The way it's done now assumes that the addon name is "Core_Module", but as you already noticed, this doesn't work for Babble or Auctioneer, so you hacked up a solution for that, but what about LibBabble-X-3.0?

And what happens to FuBar and Titan Panel, will they be blamed for all the plugins?

How about implementing a new performance tracker that goes by direct addon dependencies instead? So that you'd have a tree display with expandable nodes of modules. Or maybe your current implementation could be changed to use dependencies - would that work for Auctioneer? I know it wouldn't work for Babble, but maybe it has some custom TOC field you could look for, like "X-ModuleName" that I know Cartographer modules has.

Wouldn't it be better to change PerformanceFu to just add a Sort Addons By -> Name so that the addon list is sorted alphabetically, and you can then just add up the numbers yourself?

If I need or want to know the total for an addon myself, I just embed all the modules in the core - in fact, I don't run addons disembedded in the first place, I just disembed them when I need memory numbers per module for whatever reason.

That was the point of the post - a discussion on how it should be implemented. The current implementation was for discussion purposes, and as you say, I just hacked up PerformanceFu to have something to base the discussion on.

One of the reasons I'd like to see this is that there is no way to determine the memory used by multipart addons without breaking out a calculator and setting performanceful to display every single addon you have running (since some parts of a multipart addons may be at the bottom of the list). As a result noone actually does it.

Clearly an option to toggle the behavior is needed, you are correct, as well as a clearer way of presenting the numbers.

As for FuBar - there is some value in knowing "How much memory are all my fubar plugins using". Though its meaning is definately different than the typical core-module relationship.

I think the tree idea is a good one, though it could rapidly become complicated with libraries having dependencies on other libraries etc. I was looking for something simple that would give accurate cumulative memory use of multipart addons.

Also dont forget, not all multipart addons can be repacked into one addon. Some parts are distributed separately.

Quote from Moon Witch »

Perhaps offer a way to use a double column, if you consider the current display to be one column. Right now, I have to detach the tooltip to be able to scroll down the list to see all addons, if it were a two column layout, this scrolling might no longer be needed.

You don't have to detach the tooltip. You can just use the mousescroll directly (on PerformanceFu on your Fubar panel) when moving your mouse on PerformanceFu to bring the tooltip up.

I honestly would also like someone to implement some sort of graphical method (GraphLib) of showing addon's CPU usage, ala Process Explorer.

Having a graph of each addon's CPU usage over time would be a great help over staring at numbers that change every 1 second.

Quote from Xinhuan »

I honestly would also like someone to implement some sort of graphical method (GraphLib) of showing addon's CPU usage, ala Process Explorer.

Having a graph of each addon's CPU usage over time would be a great help over staring at numbers that change every 1 second.

Me too.

Quote from Moon Witch »

I don't have fubar ;) And on the minimap icon I can scroll all I want, the list doesn't budge. If I try to get onto the tooltip, of course it disappears. So in my case, detaching is the only option.

I thought you said you were gonna get Option House? ;)

Any objection to my trunking the current branch version with the option to "Show Totals For Multipart Addons" off by default.

Here's the screenshot:

Quote from sylvanaar »

Any objection to my trunking the current branch version with the option to "Show Totals For Multipart Addons" off by default.

Yes.

Remove the special casing for Babble and Auc somehow and get rid of the "modulecount" and "addonmem" extra properties that you added to members of the topAddons list. You should be able to create the modulecount property dynamically on entries that need it, and the addonmem property seems like you can do without.

Ok, I'll take a look at the code cleanup that you mentioned.

Quote from Elsia »

I wonder if there is a way to do something that goes slightly in the opposite direction, i.e. unfold library contributions somehow and maybe show first-level dependencies?

Case in point currently Ace2 in my installation gets a fair chunk of memory and it's dynamically changing (i.e. often the fastest growing entry in PerformanceFU). I'd like to see which libraries mainly contribute to the size and mem change.

Yeah, its definately useful, but out of the scope of the enhancment I'm proposing

Quote from Moon Witch »

I have got to ask Sylvanaar, Auctioneer ADvanced or Classic. Other then that, I like how it's going. I find it handy, to know the overall as well, saves me on writing down, calculating etc. :)

Auctioneer advanced. It has no core addon. Rather it has a bunch of Auc-* addons. Similarly Babble has a bunch of Babble-* addons but no Babble addon.