On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 07:55:00PM +0100, Roland via rsync wrote:
> hello,
>
> it's fantastic to see that such optimizations still being found.
>
> out of curiosity - what is the status of this? will it get merged ?
Yes, it was merged after being resubmitted nn github, see commit
ae1f0029
hello,
it's fantastic to see that such optimizations still being found.
out of curiosity - what is the status of this? will it get merged ?
roland
Am 28.09.21 um 12:05 schrieb Jindřich Makovička via rsync:
In 2004, an allocation optimization has been added to the file
list handling code,
Original Message
On Oct 2, 2021, 15:04, Jindřich Makovička < makov...@gmail.com> wrote:
Just note this patch has nothing to do with memory consumption vs performance.
It just avoids allocating memory that was left unused anyway.
I can read--
Please use reply-all for most
Original Message
On Oct 2, 2021, 12:36, < devz...@web.de> wrote:
>>In the exchange I argued that proper use of ram as a buffer would have cut
>>down backup time to minutes instead of days.
>could you give an example where rsync is slowing things down so much due to
>ram
gt;
> why should rsync use ram for buffering data it copies, if the linux kernel
> / vm subsystem already does this?
>
> roland
>
> *Gesendet:* Samstag, 02. Oktober 2021 um 12:07 Uhr
> *Von:* "Rupert Gallagher via rsync"
> *An:* makov...@gmail.com, rsync@lists.samba.org
il.com, rsync@lists.samba.org
Betreff: Re: [PATCH] Reduce memory usage
If you look at my previous exchange in the list, I raised the need for more ram usage via a tool option. In the exchange I argued that proper use of ram as a buffer would have cut down backup time to minutes instead of days. At the time
If you look at my previous exchange in the list, I raised the need for more ram
usage via a tool option. In the exchange I argued that proper use of ram as a
buffer would have cut down backup time to minutes instead of days. At the time,
my proposal was dismissed by someone saying that rsync
Looks awesome, really nice catch!
--
Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid omitting the mailing list.
To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync
Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
In 2004, an allocation optimization has been added to the file
list handling code, that preallocates 32k of file_struct pointers
in a file_list. This optimization predates the incremental
recursion feature, for which it is not appropriate anymore. When
copying a tree containing a large number of
On Mon, 27 Sep 2021 22:03:01 +0200
Johannes Altmanninger wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 26, 2021 at 01:54:13PM +0200, Jindřich Makovička via
> > rsync wrote:
> >
> > Applying the attached patch, which reduces the default allocation
> > to 32 pointers, and preallocates 32K pointers only for the main
> >
> On Sun, Sep 26, 2021 at 01:54:13PM +0200, Jindřich Makovička via rsync wrote:
>
> Applying the attached patch, which reduces the default allocation to 32
> pointers, and preallocates 32K pointers only for the main file lists in
> send_file_list and recv_file_list, reduces the peak memory usage
the debug print to check that
the original pointer is non-null and leave the testsuite as is.
--
Jindrich Makovicka
>From bdfdef1c5a4437e2492da148b824d39ba235704e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Jind=C5=99ich=20Makovi=C4=8Dka?=
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2021 12:01:21 +0200
Subject: [PATC
a?=
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2021 12:01:21 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Reduce memory usage
Start only with 32 entries for the partial file lists, instead of 32k.
---
flist.c | 2 ++
rsync.h | 5 +++--
testsuite/rsync.fns | 1 +
3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
dif
to 12MB.
Regards,
--
Jindřich Makovička
From ef169c9157d312c63bad00e3bfc1d8eb70d56ccd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Jind=C5=99ich=20Makovi=C4=8Dka?=
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2021 12:01:21 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Reduce memory usage
Start only with 32 entries for the partial file lists, instead
14 matches
Mail list logo
