Running Local 6.0 on a Macbook Pro M1 running Big Sur. Local is taking up almost 9 gigs of storage with seven small sites and is taking 20-30 seconds to load each page across all the sites.
While I appreciate the ability to work offline, working over the 'net is much faster. Any pointers?
local-lightning.log (39.5 KB)
error.log (972.1 KB)
Well now I am curious if this is a cross-OS issue with Local 6… because I’m seeing similar 30+ page loads on Windows 11 too)
Is this within the Web Browser, or do you mean that it’s taking a long time between clicking on the sites within Local?
9Gbs of storage could be correct – do you recall how much space was taken up before upgrading to Local 6.0?
I’m on BigSur too and for reference, I used find and du to explore the space taken up by Local. For me, I have one very large site and a number of smaller sites that combined take up 6.7Gb (2.5G for WP files, 4.2G for the “run” folder that contains the raw DB and server config)
If you’re using the default site location of ~/Local Sites – you can use this command:
find ~/Local\ Sites ~/Library/Application\ Support/Local -maxdepth 1 -type d -exec du -sh {} \;
Here’s what that command looks like for me, and how I came to the above numbers:
Digging a little deeper and searching to a depth of 3 and listing the top 30 biggest folders, I see a few trends:
find ~/Local\ Sites ~/Library/Application\ Support/Local -maxdepth 3 -type d -exec du -sh {} \; | sort -h | tail -n 30
Thanks for adding to the thread @ben.turner!
The Local app works fine…it’s the loading of the site within the browser that is dragging. I’ve tried the big three (Chrome, Safari, FF) with and without extensions/plugins with cleared caches/cookies/etc. with the same results. 80% of the local sites are pretty vanilla WP installs with very few plugins and light-ish on media/content.
I never took stock of how much space my pre-6 Local was taking up. Just added three new WP installs (again pretty small, vanilla installs)…now my disk.vmdk is 34.6gb. Ugh.
Are you running Local inside of a virtual machine?
As @afragen hints at, Local 6.0 shouldn’t be using a virtual machine. Can you provide a little more details about how Local is running on this machine?
If this is Local Classic, then I could see how it would perform slowly on an M1 mac. That’s a new chip and Local classic hasn’t been touched in a long time which would mean that there haven’t been any performance improvements done to the virtualization parts.
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
