Brice Figureau <brice-pup...@daysofwonder.com> writes: > On 19/03/09 22:50, Luke Kanies wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I've been thinking a lot about file recursion and why it's so darn >> complicated, and I think one reason is the recursion happening in the >> same resource type doing the managing. As a result, I've been >> thinking of moving the file recursion into a Fileset resource type. >> >> Currently, the file type generates new file resources during >> recursion; this basic model would be the same, except that the fileset >> resource type would be generating files. > > I've also been thinking a lot about local file recursion lately, but for > performance reasons. > > I understand your idea and what are the benefits of your proposals in > term of clarity, code concision and such. > > Right now, the main performance issue with local recursive file > resources is creating one newchild file resource per managed sub file, > which in turn will be managed by the system. > Ruby seems particularly slow at creating tons of objects, and it uses > memory for something that is at really transient.
I'm outta my league as far as the code goes but this *sounds* like what caused the support case about tidy that I submitted today. We tried to tidy our puppet reports directory which had 350k files using 1.5G. Puppet used more and more RAM until it segfaulted when it hit 2G (I assume it was exactly 2G--I wasn't watching that closely but our stats say used RAM went up about 2G while puppet was running). --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
