https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3186
------- Comment #6 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-11-23 23:07 MST ------- I tried adding --delete-during (so the full invocation now looks like "rsync -vrltH --delete -pgo --stats -z -D --numeric-ids -i --delete-during --exclude-from=/FS/dirvish/HOST/20051124/exclude --link-dest=/FS/dirvish/HOST/20051123/tree [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/ /FS/dirvish/HOST/20051124/tree" and the behavior didn't change. But now that I think about it, it's not clear if --delete could be a problem in the first place, because these are dirvish runs. That means that I'm using -H and --link-dest to populate a tree that originally starts out empty, and winds up containing only a very few files that consume actual disk space (whatever got created or modified since the dirvish run yesterday), and about 2 million hardlinks into the previous day's tree. If rsync is writing to an otherwise-empty tree, it seems to me that --delete has nothing to do---which makes me wonder why dirvish even bothers to supply it automatically, frankly, since dirvish -always- starts from an empty destination tree. Is there some reason why it makes sense to supply --delete at all? (Unfortunately, we can't ask dirvish's original author why he did this, alas.) Or does --delete cause process inflation if there -isn't- much to do instead of if there -is-? Once this run completes in a couple hours (I'm debugging some other, unrelated things at the same time in this run), I may just blow its tree away and start over without --delete in any form (by editing the dirvish script) and see if that changes its behavior, but I'd be pretty mystified if it did unless my understanding of --delete, --link-dest, and empty destination trees is just wrong. Just in case I'm being completely faked out here and the second process really is sharing most of its memory, here are the top few lines of "top" running on the destination host: top - 00:34:30 up 8 days, 8:25, 2 users, load average: 3.05, 2.00, 0.96 Tasks: 65 total, 3 running, 62 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie Cpu(s): 6.0% us, 39.9% sy, 0.0% ni, 0.0% id, 51.3% wa, 2.0% hi, 0.7% si Mem: 516492k total, 508012k used, 8480k free, 76180k buffers Swap: 1544184k total, 12476k used, 1531708k free, 68404k cached PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 10795 root 18 0 259m 253m 676 D 15.2 50.3 0:47.19 rsync 10865 root 16 0 251m 245m 688 S 0.0 48.7 0:00.08 rsync What's actually kinda interesting there is that it claims to have 8m free, and 76m of buffers, -and- to have 253+245m of rsync resident, all on a machine with only 512m total memory (and not including ~30m of other processes). And yet I'm pretty sure I -saw- the free memory go from about 200m to about 0 when that second process started up on, on previous runs. (On this one, I didn't quite catch it in the act and am not sure how much free memory there was before the inflation of the second process.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.samba.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. -- To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
