[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Pan-users] 0.114 memory usage
From: |
Csv4Me2 |
Subject: |
Re: [Pan-users] 0.114 memory usage |
Date: |
Wed, 27 Sep 2006 10:17:59 +0200 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.8.2 |
On Wednesday 27 September 2006 09:40, fred wrote:
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pan-users mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pan-users
Yeah, I second that. Handling extremely groups should be possible on machines
with a small memory footprint, say 512 Mb. That will probably mean a major
overhaul in how pan manages loading, sorting and aggregating all those
multiparts. And perhaps Charles will make that choice, I hope he does.
You were/are definitely right mentioning this.
C
Pan, the choice of the GNU generation :-)
- [Pan-users] 0.114 memory usage, fred, 2006/09/27
- Re: [Pan-users] 0.114 memory usage, Csv4Me2, 2006/09/27
- Re: [Pan-users] 0.114 memory usage, fred, 2006/09/27
- Re: [Pan-users] 0.114 memory usage,
Csv4Me2 <=
- Re: [Pan-users] 0.114 memory usage, David Kelly, 2006/09/27
- [Pan-users] Testers wanted: memory reduction patch for alt.binaries, Charles Kerr, 2006/09/27
- Re: [Pan-users] Testers wanted: memory reduction patch for alt.binaries, fred, 2006/09/28
- Re: [Pan-users] Testers wanted: memory reduction for alt.binaries, Charles Kerr, 2006/09/28
- Re: [Pan-users] Testers wanted: memory reduction for alt.binaries, fred, 2006/09/28
- Re: [Pan-users] Testers wanted: memory reduction for alt.binaries, Charles Kerr, 2006/09/28
- Re: [Pan-users] Testers wanted: memory reduction for alt.binaries, fred, 2006/09/28
- [Pan-users] Memory update: using 55% less memory than 0.114..., Charles Kerr, 2006/09/28
- Re: [Pan-users] Memory update: using 55% less memory than 0.114..., Douglas Bollinger, 2006/09/28
- Re: [Pan-users] Memory update: using 55% less memory than 0.114..., Charles Kerr, 2006/09/29