On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 06:41:04PM -0800, Ross Boylan wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 12:45 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > On 26-Nov-2009, Mark Hindley wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 09:49:31AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > > > It now has occasional stretches of full-CPU usage, often a few
> > > > minutes long; but the usage does at least drop back to a
> > > > negligible idle state after a while.
> > >
> > > Well that is progress at least.
> > >
> > > Could you try this patch on top of the last and see if it helps any
> > > more?
> >
> > With both these patches (8c7a9ed and c99bd95) applied, I'm now seeing
> > ???apt-cacher??? processes maintain a negligible CPU usage, even when APT
> > is fetching from them.
> >
> > This is highly imprecise (I'm just watching ???htop???) and I haven't put
> > any significant stress onto it, but is a good sign. I would encourage
> > anyone else experiencing the behaviour reported in this bug report to
> > try these patches and report the results.
> >
> The changes have no apparent effect for me. aptitude update goes
> basically to 100% CPU; while downloading debs, CPU use was also high,
> though possibly a bit lower than in the past (the download was too quick
> to be sure).
Actually, I have had another thought.
Try this:
diff --git a/apt-cacher2 b/apt-cacher2
index ed53849..f04cadf 100755
--- a/apt-cacher2
+++ b/apt-cacher2
@@ -1211,7 +1211,7 @@ sub connect_curlm {
}
}
# Check for pending new request
- if ($active_handles && $select->can_read(0)) {
+ if ($active_handles && $select->can_read(0.00001)) {
debug_message('Pending connection');
next LIBCURL_REQUEST;
}
Does that help? Does it hit your throughput?
Mark
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
