| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
| |
memory profile shows this did not contribute to the memory leaks fixed in
4cf6d95c1a9d10cb59669eaceafce4c7a3155eb6
|
| |
|
|
| |
large number of files.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The expensive transfer scan now scans a whole set of remotes in one pass.
So at startup, or when network comes up, it will run only once.
Note that this can result in transfers from/to higher cost remotes being
queued before other transfers of other content from/to lower cost remotes.
Before, low cost remotes were scanned first and all their transfers came
first. When multiple transfers are queued for a key, the lower cost ones
are still queued first. However, this could result in transfers from slow
remotes running for a long time while transfers of other data from faster
remotes waits.
I expect to make the transfer queue smarter about ordering
and/or make it allow multiple transfers at a time, which should eliminate
this annoyance. (Also, it was already possible to get into that situation,
for example if the network was up, lots of transfers from slow remotes
might be queued, and then a disk is mounted and its faster transfers have
to wait.)
Also note that this means I don't need to improve the code in
Assistant.Sync that currently checks if any of the reconnected remotes
have diverged, and if so, queues scans of all of them. That had been very
innefficient, but now doesn't matter.
|
| |
|
|
| |
low cost ==> high priority
|
| |
|
|
| |
Or when a remote first becomes available after startup.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
of a remote
|
| |
|
|
| |
This way, we get transfers from cheapest remotes.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The TMVar is supposed to be left empty once the map is empty, but the code
neglected to do that, so the next time takeMVar got an empty map, which
is not handled since that was supposed to never happen..
Also, avoid any possibility of this crash. If an empty map somehow creeps
in, just retry.
|
|
|
Efficiently finding transfers that need to be done to get two repos back
in sync seems like an interesting problem.
|
Joey Hess