lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Sat, 28 Jul 2007 10:51:12 +0200
From:	Rene Herman <rene.herman@...il.com>
To:	Björn Steinbrink <B.Steinbrink@....de>
CC:	Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Frank Kingswood <frank@...gswood-consulting.co.uk>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
	Ray Lee <ray-lk@...rabbit.org>,
	Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@...il.com>,
	ck list <ck@....kolivas.org>, Paul Jackson <pj@....com>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RFT: updatedb "morning after" problem [was: Re: -mm merge	plans
 for 2.6.23]

On 07/28/2007 09:35 AM, Rene Herman wrote:

> By the way -- I'm unable to make my slocate grow substantial here but 
> I'll try what GNU locate does. If it's really as bad as I hear then 
> regardless of anything else it should really be either fixed or dumped...

Yes. GNU locate is broken and nobody should be using it. The updatedb from 
(my distribution standard) "slocate" uses around 2M allocated total during 
an entire run while GNU locate allocates some 30M to the sort process alone.

GNU locate is also close to 4 times as slow (although that ofcourse only 
matters on cached runs anyways).

So, GNU locate is just a pig pushing things out, with or without any added 
VFS cache pressure from the things it does by design. As such, we can trust 
people complaining about it but should first tell them to switch to halfway 
sane locate implementation. If you run memory hogs on small memory boxes, 
you're going to suffer.

Leaves the fact that swap-prefetch sometimes helps alleviate these and other 
kinds of memory-hog situations and as such, might not (again) be a bad idea 
in itself.

Rene.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ