Long pause.
Hi everyone, I'm trying to rsync a large directory. After pondering on the list-of-files, it's now more or less doing nothing. It's running for over 4 hours now, not doing anything except eating CPUtime on the destination for over half an hour. I don't know what it was doing before that. The stdout of the rsync reported: 4675350 files to consider (which is about right) On the source machine it's using about 470 Mb of memory. On the destination machine it's using 800M of memory and growing. The rsync process on the destination machine is not doing ANY system calls. Oh! There ARE a lot of hardlinks involved. The destination machine IS swapping a bit: procs memoryswap io system cpu r b w swpd free buff cache si sobibo incs us sy id 2 0 0 803564 2820660 6788 1272 120 1272 120 2896 172 3 34 63 1 0 0 803180 2848660 6788 992 632 992 632 3358 163 2 35 63 1 0 0 802860 2844604 6668 1160 360 1160 364 3156 180 1 30 69 1 0 0 802888 2816604 6668 916 420 916 424 2795 179 4 28 68 1 0 0 802452 2760604 6668 1348 0 1348 0 2805 180 1 34 65 0 1 0 802484 2840604 6668 932 304 932 308 2601 188 2 31 67 1 0 0 802304 2832604 6668 1164 364 1164 364 3165 149 1 27 72 1 0 0 802128 2820604 6668 1036 364 1036 364 2909 133 3 29 68 1 0 0 801728 2804604 6668 1424 164 1424 168 3292 165 2 27 71 3 0 0 801456 2808600 6672 1016 264 1016 264 2682 154 7 24 69 1 1 0 801580 2828600 7048 940 112 1008 128 2377 298 41 35 24 2 0 0 801528 2780600 7228 1108 0 1288 0 2725 201 2 25 73 2 0 0 801488 2744600 7636 656 0 1064 0 2237 294 1 25 74 1 1 0 801568 2852600 7952 716 0 1032 128 2430 285 1 25 74 2 1 0 801616 2780596 8464 540 0 784 0 1642 279 34 16 50 2 1 0 801576 3844596 8568 656 0 102824 2308 419 12 32 57 1 1 0 801404 2808596 8896 708 0 1036 0 2180 252 2 21 77 0 2 0 801336 3080600 8744 844 136 1008 144 2335 207 1 21 78 0 1 1 801372 2820608 8764 960 568 988 564 2799 176 1 28 71 1 0 0 801204 2772608 8656 576 180 576 184 2141 150 1 21 78 Is this normal? Is there a way that I can estimate how much longer this is going to take. (A day: fine. A week: Not ok.) Will rsync use MORE memory? I have 200m of swap free right now, but if I should expect it to double its memory use once more, I will have to add some swap to make it happy. Right now I can monitor it, but I'll need some sleep in the next 16 hours or so... ;-) Roger. -- ** [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** http://www.BitWizard.nl/ ** +31-15-2600998 ** *-- BitWizard writes Linux device drivers for any device you may have! --* Linux is like a wigwam - no windows, no gates, apache inside! -- To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
Re: Oops more testing was required....
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 09:09:59PM +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
On 17 Jun 2003, Rogier Wolff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oops. Missed one line in the last patch
Thankyou. That looks good.
If we're going to make this more accurate it might be worthwhile to
actually look at how long we really did sleep for, and use that to
adjust time_to_sleep rather than resetting to zero.
Also I'd prefer the variable be called micros_to_sleep or
us_to_sleep. Small point I know.
OK. Agreed.
If I'm going to do gettimeofday calls, I might just as well keep a
variable that keeps the time until we've used our quotum.
Whenever we're ready to sleep, we'll get the current time, and only
sleep for the difference.
The trouble is, that if we end up using 5 seconds worth of CPU time,
we should not suddenly try to catch up for those whole 5 seconds
I like to set bwlimit to about 90% of my link capacity. This causes
rsync not to fill the link: filling the link causes my provider to
drop my packets. Also rsync won't fill my queues leading to higher
latencies on interactive traffic.
But if we allow bursting of those 5 seconds that we didn't have any
data, we'll fill the link to the brim for 50 seconds! (if there
suddenly is a nice supply of fresh data) This is undesirable. So, I'm
still thinking on how to make this more accurate, but prevent big
bursts. I'm considering not allowing more than bwlimit of
backlog. (c.f. leaky bucket bandwidth limiting in the packet filtering
world)
Roger.
diff -ur rsync-2.5.6.orig/io.c rsync-2.5.6/io.c
+++ rsync-2.5.6/io.cTue Jun 17 23:43:49 2003
@@ -416,10 +416,19 @@
* use a bit less bandwidth than specified, because it doesn't make up
* for slow periods. But arguably this is a feature. In addition, we
* ought to take the time used to write the data into account.
+ *
+ * During some phases of big transfers (file XXX is uptodate) this is
+ * called with a small bytes_written every time. As the kernel has to
+ * round small waits up to guarantee that we actually wait at least
+ * the requested number of microseconds, this can become grossly
+ * inaccurate. We therefore keep a cumulating number of microseconds
+ * to wait, and only actually perform the sleep when the rouding
+ * becomes insignificant. (less than 10%) -- REW.
**/
static void sleep_for_bwlimit(int bytes_written)
{
struct timeval tv;
+ static int time_to_sleep = 0;
if (!bwlimit)
return;
@@ -427,9 +436,13 @@
assert(bytes_written 0);
assert(bwlimit 0);
- tv.tv_usec = bytes_written * 1000 / bwlimit;
- tv.tv_sec = tv.tv_usec / 100;
- tv.tv_usec = tv.tv_usec % 100;
+ time_to_sleep += bytes_written * 1000 / bwlimit;
+
+ if (time_to_sleep 10) return;
+
+ tv.tv_sec = time_to_sleep / 100;
+ tv.tv_usec = time_to_sleep % 100;
+ time_to_sleep = 0;
select(0, NULL, NULL, NULL, tv);
}
--
Martin
--
** [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** http://www.BitWizard.nl/ ** +31-15-2600998 **
*-- BitWizard writes Linux device drivers for any device you may have! --*
* The Worlds Ecosystem is a stable system. Stable systems may experience *
* excursions from the stable situation. We are currently in such an *
* excursion: The stable situation does not include humans. ***
--
To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync
Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
efficiency issue with rsync.....
Hi rsync team, I thought that rsync would try to overlap computing and IO on both machines. I'm rsyncing a large tree (18G) and am keeping an eye on that. Suddenly my side completely stopped. No IO visible, no CPU time spent. The otherside was doing 100% CPU. Then the other side started to do disk IO. Then suddenly the activities moved over to my side, and I saw things moving again in the -v --progress output. The transfer happened to hit my spam mailbox, 400Mb of mostly-stable data. I probably rewrote the mailbox yesterday, having changed some flags on mails somewhere in the middle. Note: This is NOT a request: Please go and fix. Just an I noticed that it might be possible to make it more efficient. Feel free to keep this in mind when performing further development. (Still rsync is a very good tool, transferring the 17G of data in a couple of hours) Oh, another thing: When two files are almost the same, (e.g. I just added something to the end of a mailbox) the bandwidth of the link is not fully used while the counters are running quickly. Is this unavoidable the machine simply won't generate enough work to keep the link busy or is there a bug in the limit bandwidht to XX code? (I limit to 30k per second, and I see rsync doing lots of small sleeps. If you try to sleep for 100 usec, you'll actually be woken up by the kernel after a whopping 20 msec.) Roger. -- ** [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** http://www.BitWizard.nl/ ** +31-15-2600998 ** *-- BitWizard writes Linux device drivers for any device you may have! --* * The Worlds Ecosystem is a stable system. Stable systems may experience * * excursions from the stable situation. We are currently in such an * * excursion: The stable situation does not include humans. *** -- To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
