Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 09:52:04 -0700 (PDT) From: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> To: wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu Cc: hubs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ouch! Message-ID: <200006081652.JAA49261@vashon.polstra.com> In-Reply-To: <200006081637.MAA76127@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> References: <200006081637.MAA76127@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <200006081637.MAA76127@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>, Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> wrote: > Compare..... > > PID USERNAME PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE C TIME WCPU CPU COMMAND > 15881 nobody 62 0 118M 49748K RUN 1 129:59 44.43% 44.43% rsync > 21932 cvsup 62 0 4744K 3132K RUN 0 2:15 35.06% 35.06% cvsupd > 21437 cvsup 61 0 7848K 4356K CPU0 1 6:59 30.71% 30.71% cvsupd > 21316 cvsup -6 0 7756K 3040K biord 1 7:39 22.46% 22.46% cvsupd > 21287 cvsup 61 0 6060K 3772K RUN 1 5:53 21.19% 21.19% cvsupd > 21886 cvsup -18 0 5356K 3908K spread 0 1:33 13.72% 13.72% cvsupd > > I'm glad there aren't too many rsync users! I've noticed that too from time to time. I remember somebody saying once that rsync builds the entire update list in memory rather than streaming it on the fly. So if the file collection is large, it will use a lot of memory. CVSup supports rsync-style updates, but it currently doesn't compress as effectively as the real rsync. I got rid of the worst problems between 16.0 and 16.1. Now I think it's just a matter of tuning. If I can make CVSup do rsync updates as effectively as rsync then it will be come an attractive alternative for this kind of thing. John -- John Polstra jdp@polstra.com John D. Polstra & Co., Inc. Seattle, Washington USA "Disappointment is a good sign of basic intelligence." -- Chögyam Trungpa To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hubs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200006081652.JAA49261>