On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 02:40:53PM -0200, Renato S. Yamane wrote:
> Ray Lee escreveu:
>> On Jan 14, 2008 7:28 AM, Renato S. Yamane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Ray Lee escreveu:
On Jan 12, 2008 10:03 AM, Renato S. Yamane wrote:
> I can't use updatedb in Debian Etch (stable) using customi
Ray Lee escreveu:
On Jan 14, 2008 7:28 AM, Renato S. Yamane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ray Lee escreveu:
On Jan 12, 2008 10:03 AM, Renato S. Yamane wrote:
I can't use updatedb in Debian Etch (stable) using customized Kernel
2.6.22.9-cfs-v22.
When I ran updatedb, after ~1 minute my system hang
On Jan 14, 2008 7:28 AM, Renato S. Yamane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ray Lee escreveu:
> > On Jan 12, 2008 10:03 AM, Renato S. Yamane wrote:
> >> I can't use updatedb in Debian Etch (stable) using customized Kernel
> >> 2.6.22.9-cfs-v22.
> >>
> >> When I ran updatedb, after ~1 minute my system ha
Ray Lee escreveu:
On Jan 12, 2008 10:03 AM, Renato S. Yamane wrote:
I can't use updatedb in Debian Etch (stable) using customized Kernel
2.6.22.9-cfs-v22.
When I ran updatedb, after ~1 minute my system hangs and "caps lock" LED
is blinking. No log is registered.
Please switch out of X11 to a
On Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 04:03:43PM -0200, Renato S. Yamane wrote:
> Hi,
> I can't use updatedb in Debian Etch (stable) using customized Kernel
> 2.6.22.9-cfs-v22.
>
Hi,
Can you see if it happens with the latest CFS backport. Its been updated
quite a bit since then. You can find it at
http://peop
On Jan 12, 2008 10:03 AM, Renato S. Yamane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
> I can't use updatedb in Debian Etch (stable) using customized Kernel
> 2.6.22.9-cfs-v22.
>
> When I ran updatedb, after ~1 minute my system hangs and "caps lock" LED
> is blinking. No log is registered.
Please switch out
Rene Herman schrieb:
> On 07/27/2007 01:48 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
>> I believe the users who say their apps really do get paged back in
>> though, so suspect that's not the case.
>
> Stopping the bush-circumference beating, I do not. -ck (and gentoo) have
> this massive Calimero thing going
On 07/27/2007 01:48 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
physical ram. If it really does use only free ram, that indeed sounds
pretty pointless.
Con's quote from a bit below that seems to confirm the "only free" nicely.
I believe the users who say their apps really do get paged back in
though, so susp
On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 13:09 +0200, Rene Herman wrote:
> On 07/27/2007 11:26 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > Updatedb finishes, freeing some ram (doesn't matter how much)
>
> Will be very little and swap-prefetch at least in its current form needs
> more than very little to start doing anything:
On 07/27/2007 11:26 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 10:28 +0200, Rene Herman wrote:
I still wonder what the "the swap thing" is though. People just kept
saying that swap-prefetch helped which would seem to indicate their
problem didnt have anything to do with updatedb.
I hav
On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 10:28 +0200, Rene Herman wrote:
> On 07/27/2007 09:54 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 08:00 +0200, Rene Herman wrote:
> >
> >> The remaining issue of updatedb unnecessarily blowing away VFS caches is
> >> being discussed (*) in a few thread-branches st
On 07/27/2007 09:54 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 08:00 +0200, Rene Herman wrote:
The remaining issue of updatedb unnecessarily blowing away VFS caches is
being discussed (*) in a few thread-branches still running.
If you solve that, the swap thing dies too, they're one and
On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 08:00 +0200, Rene Herman wrote:
> The remaining issue of updatedb unnecessarily blowing away VFS caches is
> being discussed (*) in a few thread-branches still running.
If you solve that, the swap thing dies too, they're one and the same
problem.
-Mike
-
To unsubs
On 07/27/2007 02:46 AM, Jesper Juhl wrote:
On 26/07/07, Andika Triwidada <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Might be insignificant, but updatedb calls find (~2M) and sort (~26M).
Definitely not RAM intensive though (RAM is 1GB).
That doesn't match my box at all :
[ ... ]
This is a Slackware Lin
On 26/07/07, Andika Triwidada <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/26/07, Rene Herman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 07/25/2007 07:15 PM, Robert Deaton wrote:
>
> > On 7/25/07, Rene Herman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> And there we go again -- off into blabber-land. Why does swap-prefetch
> >> he
On Thursday 26 July 2007 10:01:11 Rene Herman wrote:
> On 07/26/2007 09:08 AM, Bongani Hlope wrote:
> > On Thursday 26 July 2007 08:56:59 Rene Herman wrote:
> >> Great. Now concentrate on the "swpd" column, as it's the only thing
> >> relevant here. The fact that an updatedb run fills/replaces cach
On 07/26/2007 11:58 AM, Björn Steinbrink wrote:
Will now go and see what happens if I play with swappiness.
I in fact managed to overlook _all_ of swappiness (*) and was quite frankly
under the impression that Linux would simply never swap anything out to make
room for cache. Which is basic
On 2007.07.26 11:58:29 +0200, Björn Steinbrink wrote:
> Note that the total RSS usage of updatedb+sort was just about 50MB,
> nevertheless swap grew to more than 300MB. It's also interesting that
> swapping is so aggressive, that the amount of free memory is constantly
> growing. I'm a missing some
On 2007.07.26 08:56:59 +0200, Rene Herman wrote:
> On 07/26/2007 08:39 AM, Bongani Hlope wrote:
>
>> On Thursday 26 July 2007 05:59:53 Rene Herman wrote:
>
>>> So what's happening? If you sit down with a copy op "top" in one terminal
>>> and updatedb in another, what does it show?
>
>> Just tested
On 7/26/07, Rene Herman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 07/26/2007 08:23 AM, Andika Triwidada wrote:
> On 7/26/07, Rene Herman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> RAM intensive? If I run updatedb here, it never grows itself beyond 2M.
>> Yes, two. I'm certainly willing to accept that me and my systems
On 07/26/2007 09:08 AM, Bongani Hlope wrote:
On Thursday 26 July 2007 08:56:59 Rene Herman wrote:
Great. Now concentrate on the "swpd" column, as it's the only thing
relevant here. The fact that an updatedb run fills/replaces caches is
completely and utterly unsurprising and not something sw
On 07/26/2007 08:23 AM, Andika Triwidada wrote:
On 7/26/07, Rene Herman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
RAM intensive? If I run updatedb here, it never grows itself beyond 2M.
Yes, two. I'm certainly willing to accept that me and my systems are
possibly not the reference but assuming I'm _very_ s
On Thursday 26 July 2007 08:56:59 Rene Herman wrote:
> On 07/26/2007 08:39 AM, Bongani Hlope wrote:
> > On Thursday 26 July 2007 05:59:53 Rene Herman wrote:
> >> So what's happening? If you sit down with a copy op "top" in one
> >> terminal and updatedb in another, what does it show?
> >
> > Just t
On 07/26/2007 08:39 AM, Bongani Hlope wrote:
On Thursday 26 July 2007 05:59:53 Rene Herman wrote:
So what's happening? If you sit down with a copy op "top" in one terminal
and updatedb in another, what does it show?
Just tested that, there's a steady increase in the useage of buff
Great.
On Thursday 26 July 2007 05:59:53 Rene Herman wrote:
>
> Problem spot no. 1.
>
> RAM intensive? If I run updatedb here, it never grows itself beyond 2M.
> Yes, two. I'm certainly willing to accept that me and my systems are
> possibly not the reference but assuming I'm _very_ special hasn't done mu
On 7/26/07, Rene Herman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 07/25/2007 07:15 PM, Robert Deaton wrote:
> On 7/25/07, Rene Herman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> And there we go again -- off into blabber-land. Why does swap-prefetch
>> help updatedb? Or doesn't it? And if it doesn't, why should anyone
>>
26 matches
Mail list logo
