Wols Lists wrote: > On 24/12/19 18:35, Dale wrote: >> I'll try to see if I can get the actual error here in a bit, either a >> picture or the actual text. I only need one line because it is the same >> for them all except the name and path of the file. > I've just had an idea ... > > I think it was on LWN they were talking about how a directory scan on > linux can take absolutely ages, because as it goes through it pulls > everything into cache and knackers the system. (Which is why a lot of > programs go through the grief of using direct rather than buffered io.) > > Not sure which developer it was, but they've brought in a new mode which > leaves cache untouched (sort of). If it can retrieve the file from > cache, it does so. If it's not in cache, it pulls it in, processes it, > and drops it. That way the cache does not fill up with recently accessed > files that are never going to be touched again, and your system doesn't > start swapping like mad to save all this unwanted data. > > Maybe when that is enabled in plasmashell it'll fix the problem ... how > big is this directory that's being scanned? If it's similar or larger in > size to your ram that could be the problem. Even if it's rather less, if > other programs are using up your ram ... > > Cheers, > Wol > >
I think it is indexing/caching/something that requires it to look at every single file in there plus all the levels below it. If so, that would be a huge task. Here is some info on that but I did post it a bit ago. It was sort of nested in one of the posts. 23.5 GiB 154,090 files, 8,567 sub-folders Some NASA pics can get large at times. Some I have are quite small. Still, it's a LOT of files. Dale :-) :-)
