From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IHpjM-0006Ov-QV for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 05 Aug 2007 23:41:53 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l75Ne4Mb026939; Sun, 5 Aug 2007 23:40:04 GMT Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l75Ne49o026914 for ; Sun, 5 Aug 2007 23:40:04 GMT Received: from root by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IHpha-0006nO-Lj for gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 01:40:02 +0200 Received: from ip68-230-64-182.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.230.64.182]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 01:40:02 +0200 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-230-64-182.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 01:40:02 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-amd64] Re: Rsync server performance problem solved Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 23:38:29 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <200708051113.34894.prh@gotadsl.co.uk> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-230-64-182.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.132 (Waxed in Black) Sender: news X-Archives-Salt: f9c88c70-2604-48b4-bd38-a28ced0da9fa X-Archives-Hash: afeaf24c3c54942bbb5df2f0f5076296 Peter Humphrey posted 200708051113.34894.prh@gotadsl.co.uk, excerpted below, on Sun, 05 Aug 2007 11:13:34 +0100: > It turns out that the 256 MB of RAM in the server wasn't enough, since > as soon as I put in another GB it just flew - about one or two seconds > now for file list transfer, which is a factor of 50 or 100 better. > > The box does run BOINC clients, but at nice 19, so I though that > shouldn't be a problem. However, I now remember that my BOINC parameters > included a leave-in-memory-while-inactive option, and I suppose that > must have been it, though I don't know how the kernel would operate with > that setting. > > Hope someone finds this interesting. Yes, indeed. Thanks much! =8^) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman -- gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list