Hello Robert, Le 08. 10. 15 13:54, Robert Heinzmann a écrit : > Hi, > >> I think you did a really nice investigation work :-) > Thanks ... was fun :) > >> I think that your patch is almost right, and we need to figure if we want to >> add specific directives for that. I tend to believe right now that with or >> without the POSIX call, the os will cache the file, and it sounds better to >> do it in advance, let see what other people are thinking about your idea. > > the point is, does it cache the file and evict the cache after the backup of > the file (what is with posix call) > > Example WITH fix: > ---------------------- > > Server: 8 GB unused memory > Running Application (aka workload) = 4 of working set and cached files > Bacula backing up 800 x 100 MB FILE (8 GB in total) > > => After backup > > Running Application: > If bacula backs up the working set data: 0 GB cached > If bacula backs up other sets of data: 4 GB cached (e.g. a Snapshot of the > dataset which also has new filehandles) <=== Our case !!!! > Bacula 100MB of cached (and never reused) data > > OR > > does bacula polute the whole file system cache > > Example WITHOUT fix: > ----------------------------- > > Server: 8 GB unused memory > Running Application (aka workload) = 4 of working set and cached files > Bacula backing up 800 x 100 MB FILE (8 GB in total) > > => After backup > > Running Application: 0 GB cached > Bacula 8 GB of cached (and never reused) data > >
I think that if I understand correctly what you wrote, the "fix" is better in all cases (and I agree with you), so I'm not convinced that we should have a directive. Best Regards, Eric ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
