Hi Jamie,
On 10/12/06, Jamie McCracken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've noticed when indexing *large* amounts of data that a lot of disk
> thrashing is taking place which is greatly slowing down performance of
> both tracker and the system in general.
>
> Also the nice +10 is not throttling enoug
Anders Aagaard wrote:
>
> Why not hold back updates, but force flush to disk if a search is called?
it would be too slow I guess (assuming 1000's of files cached up and
could cause a bus timeout for the search).
We would only hold back updates for new files - existing files would be
indexed st
Jamie McCracken wrote:
> I've noticed when indexing *large* amounts of data that a lot of disk
> thrashing is taking place which is greatly slowing down performance of
> both tracker and the system in general.
>
> Also the nice +10 is not throttling enough (I dont have ionice in my
> kernel so
I've noticed when indexing *large* amounts of data that a lot of disk
thrashing is taking place which is greatly slowing down performance of
both tracker and the system in general.
Also the nice +10 is not throttling enough (I dont have ionice in my
kernel so I dont know how good a job that doe
