Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 14:55:20 +0200 From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= <des@des.no> To: Alexander Best <arundel@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: expand_number() for fetch'es -B and -S switches Message-ID: <86pqwwjoef.fsf@ds4.des.no> In-Reply-To: <20100902122348.GA38047@freebsd.org> (Alexander Best's message of "Thu, 2 Sep 2010 12:23:48 %2B0000") References: <20100831180103.GA92584@freebsd.org> <86fwxt5ng1.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20100901222834.GA66517@freebsd.org> <864oe8mpga.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20100902114655.GA9071@freebsd.org> <8639tsl5q0.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20100902122348.GA38047@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Alexander Best <arundel@freebsd.org> writes: > the current maximum buffer limit of fetch(1) actually is around 1G. i > think 1M is not enough, because if people are pulling data over fast > lines they'll have almost constant disk writes. how about 100M then? > ;) Large buffer sizes are *not* better, since fetch(1) will alternate between filling the buffer and writing it to disk. The buffer should not be too small, but it should not be too large either; the sweet spot is somewhere around 128 kB. > on the other hand why have a maximum limit? if people want to have a > buffer of 100 gigabyte why shouldn't they? it's their decision > actually. Good point... although if they set it too high, either malloc(3) will fail - if they're lucky - or fetch(1) will crash when the system runs out of physical RAM and swap, and they'll have to start over. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86pqwwjoef.fsf>