pan-users
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Pan-users] 0.114 memory usage


From: fred
Subject: Re: [Pan-users] 0.114 memory usage
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 02:40:25 -0500
User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (X11/20060913)

Csv4Me2 wrote:
On Wednesday 27 September 2006 07:26, fred wrote:
Hey Charles

I am using 0.114 and still using up tons of memory 1.9gb/2.0gb + 4gb of
swap. Trying to get all the headers for A.B.dvd from giganews.
FC5,2.6.17-1.2187_FC5smp, once it hits the end of the swap it just stops
responing. It compiled without error and make check passed. Any
suggestions?

Thanks
Lazlow


_______________________________________________
Pan-users mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pan-users

What do you expect from a group with 30.000.000+ messsages ?
Giganews retention period of three months or more isn't always a blessing, or even necessary. When I downloaded all the headers (3G of headers alone) of that group pan eventually built a single group file of 1750 M !!!, and it's all stored in core just before that :-)
Not a bug but reaching the physical limits of your box, I guess.

my 2 cents

C




_______________________________________________
Pan-users mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pan-users

I agree that I have apparently reached the physical limits of my machine with pan the way it is now. But I believe that the trend of longer retention times and more posts will only continue to grow. I also believe that the majority of machines out there do not have any more physcial resources than I do (with the majority probably having less). If we assume both of those statements are true then something should change. I have no idea how much work it would take to do a save after x mb of headers or if it is even possible. If Charles says he is not going to do it, that is his choice. It is his show. Not informing him of the issue would be depriving him of that choice.

Thanks
Lazlow




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]