[snip]
It's not rsync itself. It's just triggering some odd behaviour.
I've poked alc; I'll work with him to see if this can be figured out.
Thanks! I'm glad I'm not the only person who has seen this behaviour!
-adrian
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org
On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 09:30:11 -0600, Ian Lepore wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-03-15 at 07:20 -0700, Jeffrey Bouquet wrote:
> > rsync... see bottom posting
> >
> > On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 07:43:46 +0100, olli hauer wrote:
> >
> > > On 2016-03-14 15:19, Ian Lepore wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 2016-03-13 at 19:08
...
>> Just a point I've bought up elsewhere...
>> I've, if I recall, wrecked several filesystems (although EIDE) using
>> rsync at the normal bus rate, and sometimes
>> thumbdrives with whatever filesystem type on them.
>>
>> I settled on --bwlimit=1500, max for unattended rsync usage and
>> al
On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 18:33:20 -0700
Mark Johnston wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 09:38:35AM +0100, Gary Jennejohn wrote:
> > In the course of the last year or so the behavior of the vm system
> > has changed in regard to how aggressively Inact memory is recycled.
> >
> > My box has 8GB of memor
On Tue, 2016-03-15 at 07:20 -0700, Jeffrey Bouquet wrote:
> rsync... see bottom posting
>
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 07:43:46 +0100, olli hauer wrote:
>
> > On 2016-03-14 15:19, Ian Lepore wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2016-03-13 at 19:08 -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> > > > On 13 March 2016 at 18:51, Mark John
rsync... see bottom posting
On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 07:43:46 +0100, olli hauer wrote:
> On 2016-03-14 15:19, Ian Lepore wrote:
> > On Sun, 2016-03-13 at 19:08 -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> >> On 13 March 2016 at 18:51, Mark Johnston wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 06:33:46PM -0700, Adrian Chadd
On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 16:41:17 +0100
Fabian Keil wrote:
> Gary Jennejohn wrote:
>
> > In the course of the last year or so the behavior of the vm system
> > has changed in regard to how aggressively Inact memory is recycled.
> >
> > My box has 8GB of memory. At the moment I'm copying 100s of gi
On 2016-03-14 15:19, Ian Lepore wrote:
> On Sun, 2016-03-13 at 19:08 -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>> On 13 March 2016 at 18:51, Mark Johnston wrote:
>>> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 06:33:46PM -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Hi,
I can reproduce this by doing a mkimage on a large destination
>>>
On Sun, 2016-03-13 at 19:08 -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On 13 March 2016 at 18:51, Mark Johnston wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 06:33:46PM -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I can reproduce this by doing a mkimage on a large destination
> > > file
> > > image. it looks like it
On 13 March 2016 at 18:51, Mark Johnston wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 06:33:46PM -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I can reproduce this by doing a mkimage on a large destination file
>> image. it looks like it causes all the desktop processes to get paged
>> out whilst it's doing so, and
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 06:33:46PM -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I can reproduce this by doing a mkimage on a large destination file
> image. it looks like it causes all the desktop processes to get paged
> out whilst it's doing so, and then the whole UI freezes until it
> catches up.
mkim
Hi,
I can reproduce this by doing a mkimage on a large destination file
image. it looks like it causes all the desktop processes to get paged
out whilst it's doing so, and then the whole UI freezes until it
catches up.
I'll poke alc and others to see if I can figure out how to trace
what's going
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 09:38:35AM +0100, Gary Jennejohn wrote:
> In the course of the last year or so the behavior of the vm system
> has changed in regard to how aggressively Inact memory is recycled.
>
> My box has 8GB of memory. At the moment I'm copying 100s of gigabytes
> from one file syst
Gary Jennejohn wrote:
> In the course of the last year or so the behavior of the vm system
> has changed in regard to how aggressively Inact memory is recycled.
>
> My box has 8GB of memory. At the moment I'm copying 100s of gigabytes
> from one file system to another one.
>
> Looking at top I
Yeah, but his comment is that "i'm doing a large file copy operation;
why is the system paging out binaries versus recycling other file
cache memory?"
I have a feeling this is more due to the last few years of VM work to
improve file serving performance and it hasn't really been
tested/evaluated i
On Sat, 12 Mar 2016 09:38:35 +0100
Gary Jennejohn wrote:
> In the course of the last year or so the behavior of the vm system
> has changed in regard to how aggressively Inact memory is recycled.
>
> My box has 8GB of memory. At the moment I'm copying 100s of gigabytes
> from one file system to
In the course of the last year or so the behavior of the vm system
has changed in regard to how aggressively Inact memory is recycled.
My box has 8GB of memory. At the moment I'm copying 100s of gigabytes
from one file system to another one.
Looking at top I observe that there are about 6GB of I
17 matches
Mail list logo
