How can I limit page cache/buffer size
My problem is this: My laptop has a relatively slow disk subsystem (amd I'm not going to buy a better one) and I backup my system using rsync
which works well for me. However, during the backup process, the files read are read into the buffer/cache of the system, which eventually triggers the swap system.
For example, running cat Win10.qcow2 > /dev/null
a 60 GB file will result in
free -h
total used free shared buff/cache available
Mem: 15Gi 2.2Gi 210Mi 170Mi 13Gi 12Gi
Swap: 30Gi 14Mi 30Gi
and if I write to a real device, like my USB backup drive, the swap starts being used, up to a couple of GB. I do have vm.swappiness = 0
in /etc/sysctl
By itself, this is not bad, but because of my slow disk system, the computer becomes less than sprightly in response to inputs. Painfully slow, in fact.
What I would like to have is a method for limiting the amount of page buffer that the process can consume, leaving enough room to run smaller commands, such as opening a terminal.
What I have tried, is using lxc
, which did not limit the system use of buffers, docker
which I could not fully figure out yet, and I'm attempting to get lxd
running, but I'll need some time to figure that one out.
There is a program nocache
which I think works, but rsync
then does not output progress indicators.
ram swap rsync 18.10
add a comment |
My problem is this: My laptop has a relatively slow disk subsystem (amd I'm not going to buy a better one) and I backup my system using rsync
which works well for me. However, during the backup process, the files read are read into the buffer/cache of the system, which eventually triggers the swap system.
For example, running cat Win10.qcow2 > /dev/null
a 60 GB file will result in
free -h
total used free shared buff/cache available
Mem: 15Gi 2.2Gi 210Mi 170Mi 13Gi 12Gi
Swap: 30Gi 14Mi 30Gi
and if I write to a real device, like my USB backup drive, the swap starts being used, up to a couple of GB. I do have vm.swappiness = 0
in /etc/sysctl
By itself, this is not bad, but because of my slow disk system, the computer becomes less than sprightly in response to inputs. Painfully slow, in fact.
What I would like to have is a method for limiting the amount of page buffer that the process can consume, leaving enough room to run smaller commands, such as opening a terminal.
What I have tried, is using lxc
, which did not limit the system use of buffers, docker
which I could not fully figure out yet, and I'm attempting to get lxd
running, but I'll need some time to figure that one out.
There is a program nocache
which I think works, but rsync
then does not output progress indicators.
ram swap rsync 18.10
@Fabby Not exactly a duplicate.. My swap is larger than need be, and I like keeping it around - but I'd really like to limit the amount of page/buffer cache thatrsync
consumes. There is a programnocache
which I think works, butrsync
then does not output progress indicators.
– Charles Green
Dec 15 at 23:03
Read the answer in its entirety and don't stop reading when it says "If you've got a server, that's it". The nifty trick comes last.
– Fabby
Dec 15 at 23:10
@Fabby I'm treating this like an XY problem and posted an answer to changersync
behavior rather than swapiness. With--inplace
argumentrsync
will do block writes rather than buffering. If I did my homework properly that is :)
– WinEunuuchs2Unix
Dec 16 at 1:04
Close Vote retracted, Answer upvoted! @WinEunuuchs2Unix
– Fabby
Dec 16 at 1:18
add a comment |
My problem is this: My laptop has a relatively slow disk subsystem (amd I'm not going to buy a better one) and I backup my system using rsync
which works well for me. However, during the backup process, the files read are read into the buffer/cache of the system, which eventually triggers the swap system.
For example, running cat Win10.qcow2 > /dev/null
a 60 GB file will result in
free -h
total used free shared buff/cache available
Mem: 15Gi 2.2Gi 210Mi 170Mi 13Gi 12Gi
Swap: 30Gi 14Mi 30Gi
and if I write to a real device, like my USB backup drive, the swap starts being used, up to a couple of GB. I do have vm.swappiness = 0
in /etc/sysctl
By itself, this is not bad, but because of my slow disk system, the computer becomes less than sprightly in response to inputs. Painfully slow, in fact.
What I would like to have is a method for limiting the amount of page buffer that the process can consume, leaving enough room to run smaller commands, such as opening a terminal.
What I have tried, is using lxc
, which did not limit the system use of buffers, docker
which I could not fully figure out yet, and I'm attempting to get lxd
running, but I'll need some time to figure that one out.
There is a program nocache
which I think works, but rsync
then does not output progress indicators.
ram swap rsync 18.10
My problem is this: My laptop has a relatively slow disk subsystem (amd I'm not going to buy a better one) and I backup my system using rsync
which works well for me. However, during the backup process, the files read are read into the buffer/cache of the system, which eventually triggers the swap system.
For example, running cat Win10.qcow2 > /dev/null
a 60 GB file will result in
free -h
total used free shared buff/cache available
Mem: 15Gi 2.2Gi 210Mi 170Mi 13Gi 12Gi
Swap: 30Gi 14Mi 30Gi
and if I write to a real device, like my USB backup drive, the swap starts being used, up to a couple of GB. I do have vm.swappiness = 0
in /etc/sysctl
By itself, this is not bad, but because of my slow disk system, the computer becomes less than sprightly in response to inputs. Painfully slow, in fact.
What I would like to have is a method for limiting the amount of page buffer that the process can consume, leaving enough room to run smaller commands, such as opening a terminal.
What I have tried, is using lxc
, which did not limit the system use of buffers, docker
which I could not fully figure out yet, and I'm attempting to get lxd
running, but I'll need some time to figure that one out.
There is a program nocache
which I think works, but rsync
then does not output progress indicators.
ram swap rsync 18.10
ram swap rsync 18.10
edited Dec 15 at 23:04
asked Dec 14 at 17:44
Charles Green
13k73557
13k73557
@Fabby Not exactly a duplicate.. My swap is larger than need be, and I like keeping it around - but I'd really like to limit the amount of page/buffer cache thatrsync
consumes. There is a programnocache
which I think works, butrsync
then does not output progress indicators.
– Charles Green
Dec 15 at 23:03
Read the answer in its entirety and don't stop reading when it says "If you've got a server, that's it". The nifty trick comes last.
– Fabby
Dec 15 at 23:10
@Fabby I'm treating this like an XY problem and posted an answer to changersync
behavior rather than swapiness. With--inplace
argumentrsync
will do block writes rather than buffering. If I did my homework properly that is :)
– WinEunuuchs2Unix
Dec 16 at 1:04
Close Vote retracted, Answer upvoted! @WinEunuuchs2Unix
– Fabby
Dec 16 at 1:18
add a comment |
@Fabby Not exactly a duplicate.. My swap is larger than need be, and I like keeping it around - but I'd really like to limit the amount of page/buffer cache thatrsync
consumes. There is a programnocache
which I think works, butrsync
then does not output progress indicators.
– Charles Green
Dec 15 at 23:03
Read the answer in its entirety and don't stop reading when it says "If you've got a server, that's it". The nifty trick comes last.
– Fabby
Dec 15 at 23:10
@Fabby I'm treating this like an XY problem and posted an answer to changersync
behavior rather than swapiness. With--inplace
argumentrsync
will do block writes rather than buffering. If I did my homework properly that is :)
– WinEunuuchs2Unix
Dec 16 at 1:04
Close Vote retracted, Answer upvoted! @WinEunuuchs2Unix
– Fabby
Dec 16 at 1:18
@Fabby Not exactly a duplicate.. My swap is larger than need be, and I like keeping it around - but I'd really like to limit the amount of page/buffer cache that
rsync
consumes. There is a program nocache
which I think works, but rsync
then does not output progress indicators.– Charles Green
Dec 15 at 23:03
@Fabby Not exactly a duplicate.. My swap is larger than need be, and I like keeping it around - but I'd really like to limit the amount of page/buffer cache that
rsync
consumes. There is a program nocache
which I think works, but rsync
then does not output progress indicators.– Charles Green
Dec 15 at 23:03
Read the answer in its entirety and don't stop reading when it says "If you've got a server, that's it". The nifty trick comes last.
– Fabby
Dec 15 at 23:10
Read the answer in its entirety and don't stop reading when it says "If you've got a server, that's it". The nifty trick comes last.
– Fabby
Dec 15 at 23:10
@Fabby I'm treating this like an XY problem and posted an answer to change
rsync
behavior rather than swapiness. With --inplace
argument rsync
will do block writes rather than buffering. If I did my homework properly that is :)– WinEunuuchs2Unix
Dec 16 at 1:04
@Fabby I'm treating this like an XY problem and posted an answer to change
rsync
behavior rather than swapiness. With --inplace
argument rsync
will do block writes rather than buffering. If I did my homework properly that is :)– WinEunuuchs2Unix
Dec 16 at 1:04
Close Vote retracted, Answer upvoted! @WinEunuuchs2Unix
– Fabby
Dec 16 at 1:18
Close Vote retracted, Answer upvoted! @WinEunuuchs2Unix
– Fabby
Dec 16 at 1:18
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
By default when rsync
updates your backup it creates a copy of the file and then moves it into place. To avoid this step you can have rsync
write directly to your backup with the --inplace
argument.
As per https://linux.die.net/man/1/rsync:
--inplace
This option changes how rsync transfers a file when the file's data needs to be updated: instead of the default method of creating a
new copy of the file and moving it into place when it is complete,
rsync instead writes the updated data directly to the destination
file.
This has several effects:
(1) in-use binaries cannot be updated
(either the
OS will prevent this from happening, or binaries that attempt to swap-in their data will misbehave or crash),
(2) the file's data will
be in an inconsistent state during the transfer,
(3) a file's data may
be left in an inconsistent state after the transfer if the transfer is
interrupted or if an update fails,
(4) a file that does not have write
permissions can not be updated, and
(5) the efficiency of rsync's
delta-transfer algorithm may be reduced if some data in the
destination file is overwritten before it can be copied to a position
later in the file (one exception to this is if you combine this option
with --backup, since rsync is smart enough to use the backup file as
the basis file for the transfer).
WARNING: you should not use this
option to update files that are being
accessed by others, so be careful when choosing to use this for a copy.
This option is useful for transfer of large files with
block-based changes
or appended data, and also on systems that are disk bound, not network bound.
The option implies
--partial
(since an interrupted
transfer does not delete
the file), but conflicts with--partial-dir
and--delay-updates
. Prior torsync 2.6.4
--inplace
was also incompatible with
--compare-des
t and--link-dest
.
Thanks for the answer - I appreciate the education on the workings ofrsync
, and should read the man pages more fully. It eases the issue some, although I still manage to have a large pile of ram consumed by the page cache while the process runs.
– Charles Green
Dec 17 at 15:00
@CharlesGreen Glad there is some progress. I'm doing a little more reading that might be of interest but doesn't totally answer your problem: serverfault.com/questions/258321/… and forums.fedoraforum.org/…
– WinEunuuchs2Unix
Dec 17 at 15:09
Both of those are interesting, and ones that I had not seen before. I did have some limited success usingnice
on thersync
, and wrapping the program in a cgroup, but looking forward to experimenting withionice
andbuffer
– Charles Green
Dec 17 at 15:46
Some testing with the links indicates that I am going to get relief with theionice
command and the--bwlimit
rsync parameter. My backup disk is a USB, possibly older, and apparently it is not up to the speed demands that my computer is capable of asking for.
– Charles Green
Dec 17 at 16:20
@CharlesGreen Yes I suspected theionice
and--bwlimit
options when I read the links but could not spot definitive reference for you.
– WinEunuuchs2Unix
Dec 17 at 16:21
|
show 1 more comment
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "89"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faskubuntu.com%2fquestions%2f1100937%2fhow-can-i-limit-page-cache-buffer-size%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
By default when rsync
updates your backup it creates a copy of the file and then moves it into place. To avoid this step you can have rsync
write directly to your backup with the --inplace
argument.
As per https://linux.die.net/man/1/rsync:
--inplace
This option changes how rsync transfers a file when the file's data needs to be updated: instead of the default method of creating a
new copy of the file and moving it into place when it is complete,
rsync instead writes the updated data directly to the destination
file.
This has several effects:
(1) in-use binaries cannot be updated
(either the
OS will prevent this from happening, or binaries that attempt to swap-in their data will misbehave or crash),
(2) the file's data will
be in an inconsistent state during the transfer,
(3) a file's data may
be left in an inconsistent state after the transfer if the transfer is
interrupted or if an update fails,
(4) a file that does not have write
permissions can not be updated, and
(5) the efficiency of rsync's
delta-transfer algorithm may be reduced if some data in the
destination file is overwritten before it can be copied to a position
later in the file (one exception to this is if you combine this option
with --backup, since rsync is smart enough to use the backup file as
the basis file for the transfer).
WARNING: you should not use this
option to update files that are being
accessed by others, so be careful when choosing to use this for a copy.
This option is useful for transfer of large files with
block-based changes
or appended data, and also on systems that are disk bound, not network bound.
The option implies
--partial
(since an interrupted
transfer does not delete
the file), but conflicts with--partial-dir
and--delay-updates
. Prior torsync 2.6.4
--inplace
was also incompatible with
--compare-des
t and--link-dest
.
Thanks for the answer - I appreciate the education on the workings ofrsync
, and should read the man pages more fully. It eases the issue some, although I still manage to have a large pile of ram consumed by the page cache while the process runs.
– Charles Green
Dec 17 at 15:00
@CharlesGreen Glad there is some progress. I'm doing a little more reading that might be of interest but doesn't totally answer your problem: serverfault.com/questions/258321/… and forums.fedoraforum.org/…
– WinEunuuchs2Unix
Dec 17 at 15:09
Both of those are interesting, and ones that I had not seen before. I did have some limited success usingnice
on thersync
, and wrapping the program in a cgroup, but looking forward to experimenting withionice
andbuffer
– Charles Green
Dec 17 at 15:46
Some testing with the links indicates that I am going to get relief with theionice
command and the--bwlimit
rsync parameter. My backup disk is a USB, possibly older, and apparently it is not up to the speed demands that my computer is capable of asking for.
– Charles Green
Dec 17 at 16:20
@CharlesGreen Yes I suspected theionice
and--bwlimit
options when I read the links but could not spot definitive reference for you.
– WinEunuuchs2Unix
Dec 17 at 16:21
|
show 1 more comment
By default when rsync
updates your backup it creates a copy of the file and then moves it into place. To avoid this step you can have rsync
write directly to your backup with the --inplace
argument.
As per https://linux.die.net/man/1/rsync:
--inplace
This option changes how rsync transfers a file when the file's data needs to be updated: instead of the default method of creating a
new copy of the file and moving it into place when it is complete,
rsync instead writes the updated data directly to the destination
file.
This has several effects:
(1) in-use binaries cannot be updated
(either the
OS will prevent this from happening, or binaries that attempt to swap-in their data will misbehave or crash),
(2) the file's data will
be in an inconsistent state during the transfer,
(3) a file's data may
be left in an inconsistent state after the transfer if the transfer is
interrupted or if an update fails,
(4) a file that does not have write
permissions can not be updated, and
(5) the efficiency of rsync's
delta-transfer algorithm may be reduced if some data in the
destination file is overwritten before it can be copied to a position
later in the file (one exception to this is if you combine this option
with --backup, since rsync is smart enough to use the backup file as
the basis file for the transfer).
WARNING: you should not use this
option to update files that are being
accessed by others, so be careful when choosing to use this for a copy.
This option is useful for transfer of large files with
block-based changes
or appended data, and also on systems that are disk bound, not network bound.
The option implies
--partial
(since an interrupted
transfer does not delete
the file), but conflicts with--partial-dir
and--delay-updates
. Prior torsync 2.6.4
--inplace
was also incompatible with
--compare-des
t and--link-dest
.
Thanks for the answer - I appreciate the education on the workings ofrsync
, and should read the man pages more fully. It eases the issue some, although I still manage to have a large pile of ram consumed by the page cache while the process runs.
– Charles Green
Dec 17 at 15:00
@CharlesGreen Glad there is some progress. I'm doing a little more reading that might be of interest but doesn't totally answer your problem: serverfault.com/questions/258321/… and forums.fedoraforum.org/…
– WinEunuuchs2Unix
Dec 17 at 15:09
Both of those are interesting, and ones that I had not seen before. I did have some limited success usingnice
on thersync
, and wrapping the program in a cgroup, but looking forward to experimenting withionice
andbuffer
– Charles Green
Dec 17 at 15:46
Some testing with the links indicates that I am going to get relief with theionice
command and the--bwlimit
rsync parameter. My backup disk is a USB, possibly older, and apparently it is not up to the speed demands that my computer is capable of asking for.
– Charles Green
Dec 17 at 16:20
@CharlesGreen Yes I suspected theionice
and--bwlimit
options when I read the links but could not spot definitive reference for you.
– WinEunuuchs2Unix
Dec 17 at 16:21
|
show 1 more comment
By default when rsync
updates your backup it creates a copy of the file and then moves it into place. To avoid this step you can have rsync
write directly to your backup with the --inplace
argument.
As per https://linux.die.net/man/1/rsync:
--inplace
This option changes how rsync transfers a file when the file's data needs to be updated: instead of the default method of creating a
new copy of the file and moving it into place when it is complete,
rsync instead writes the updated data directly to the destination
file.
This has several effects:
(1) in-use binaries cannot be updated
(either the
OS will prevent this from happening, or binaries that attempt to swap-in their data will misbehave or crash),
(2) the file's data will
be in an inconsistent state during the transfer,
(3) a file's data may
be left in an inconsistent state after the transfer if the transfer is
interrupted or if an update fails,
(4) a file that does not have write
permissions can not be updated, and
(5) the efficiency of rsync's
delta-transfer algorithm may be reduced if some data in the
destination file is overwritten before it can be copied to a position
later in the file (one exception to this is if you combine this option
with --backup, since rsync is smart enough to use the backup file as
the basis file for the transfer).
WARNING: you should not use this
option to update files that are being
accessed by others, so be careful when choosing to use this for a copy.
This option is useful for transfer of large files with
block-based changes
or appended data, and also on systems that are disk bound, not network bound.
The option implies
--partial
(since an interrupted
transfer does not delete
the file), but conflicts with--partial-dir
and--delay-updates
. Prior torsync 2.6.4
--inplace
was also incompatible with
--compare-des
t and--link-dest
.
By default when rsync
updates your backup it creates a copy of the file and then moves it into place. To avoid this step you can have rsync
write directly to your backup with the --inplace
argument.
As per https://linux.die.net/man/1/rsync:
--inplace
This option changes how rsync transfers a file when the file's data needs to be updated: instead of the default method of creating a
new copy of the file and moving it into place when it is complete,
rsync instead writes the updated data directly to the destination
file.
This has several effects:
(1) in-use binaries cannot be updated
(either the
OS will prevent this from happening, or binaries that attempt to swap-in their data will misbehave or crash),
(2) the file's data will
be in an inconsistent state during the transfer,
(3) a file's data may
be left in an inconsistent state after the transfer if the transfer is
interrupted or if an update fails,
(4) a file that does not have write
permissions can not be updated, and
(5) the efficiency of rsync's
delta-transfer algorithm may be reduced if some data in the
destination file is overwritten before it can be copied to a position
later in the file (one exception to this is if you combine this option
with --backup, since rsync is smart enough to use the backup file as
the basis file for the transfer).
WARNING: you should not use this
option to update files that are being
accessed by others, so be careful when choosing to use this for a copy.
This option is useful for transfer of large files with
block-based changes
or appended data, and also on systems that are disk bound, not network bound.
The option implies
--partial
(since an interrupted
transfer does not delete
the file), but conflicts with--partial-dir
and--delay-updates
. Prior torsync 2.6.4
--inplace
was also incompatible with
--compare-des
t and--link-dest
.
answered Dec 16 at 0:59
WinEunuuchs2Unix
43.2k1075163
43.2k1075163
Thanks for the answer - I appreciate the education on the workings ofrsync
, and should read the man pages more fully. It eases the issue some, although I still manage to have a large pile of ram consumed by the page cache while the process runs.
– Charles Green
Dec 17 at 15:00
@CharlesGreen Glad there is some progress. I'm doing a little more reading that might be of interest but doesn't totally answer your problem: serverfault.com/questions/258321/… and forums.fedoraforum.org/…
– WinEunuuchs2Unix
Dec 17 at 15:09
Both of those are interesting, and ones that I had not seen before. I did have some limited success usingnice
on thersync
, and wrapping the program in a cgroup, but looking forward to experimenting withionice
andbuffer
– Charles Green
Dec 17 at 15:46
Some testing with the links indicates that I am going to get relief with theionice
command and the--bwlimit
rsync parameter. My backup disk is a USB, possibly older, and apparently it is not up to the speed demands that my computer is capable of asking for.
– Charles Green
Dec 17 at 16:20
@CharlesGreen Yes I suspected theionice
and--bwlimit
options when I read the links but could not spot definitive reference for you.
– WinEunuuchs2Unix
Dec 17 at 16:21
|
show 1 more comment
Thanks for the answer - I appreciate the education on the workings ofrsync
, and should read the man pages more fully. It eases the issue some, although I still manage to have a large pile of ram consumed by the page cache while the process runs.
– Charles Green
Dec 17 at 15:00
@CharlesGreen Glad there is some progress. I'm doing a little more reading that might be of interest but doesn't totally answer your problem: serverfault.com/questions/258321/… and forums.fedoraforum.org/…
– WinEunuuchs2Unix
Dec 17 at 15:09
Both of those are interesting, and ones that I had not seen before. I did have some limited success usingnice
on thersync
, and wrapping the program in a cgroup, but looking forward to experimenting withionice
andbuffer
– Charles Green
Dec 17 at 15:46
Some testing with the links indicates that I am going to get relief with theionice
command and the--bwlimit
rsync parameter. My backup disk is a USB, possibly older, and apparently it is not up to the speed demands that my computer is capable of asking for.
– Charles Green
Dec 17 at 16:20
@CharlesGreen Yes I suspected theionice
and--bwlimit
options when I read the links but could not spot definitive reference for you.
– WinEunuuchs2Unix
Dec 17 at 16:21
Thanks for the answer - I appreciate the education on the workings of
rsync
, and should read the man pages more fully. It eases the issue some, although I still manage to have a large pile of ram consumed by the page cache while the process runs.– Charles Green
Dec 17 at 15:00
Thanks for the answer - I appreciate the education on the workings of
rsync
, and should read the man pages more fully. It eases the issue some, although I still manage to have a large pile of ram consumed by the page cache while the process runs.– Charles Green
Dec 17 at 15:00
@CharlesGreen Glad there is some progress. I'm doing a little more reading that might be of interest but doesn't totally answer your problem: serverfault.com/questions/258321/… and forums.fedoraforum.org/…
– WinEunuuchs2Unix
Dec 17 at 15:09
@CharlesGreen Glad there is some progress. I'm doing a little more reading that might be of interest but doesn't totally answer your problem: serverfault.com/questions/258321/… and forums.fedoraforum.org/…
– WinEunuuchs2Unix
Dec 17 at 15:09
Both of those are interesting, and ones that I had not seen before. I did have some limited success using
nice
on the rsync
, and wrapping the program in a cgroup, but looking forward to experimenting with ionice
and buffer
– Charles Green
Dec 17 at 15:46
Both of those are interesting, and ones that I had not seen before. I did have some limited success using
nice
on the rsync
, and wrapping the program in a cgroup, but looking forward to experimenting with ionice
and buffer
– Charles Green
Dec 17 at 15:46
Some testing with the links indicates that I am going to get relief with the
ionice
command and the --bwlimit
rsync parameter. My backup disk is a USB, possibly older, and apparently it is not up to the speed demands that my computer is capable of asking for.– Charles Green
Dec 17 at 16:20
Some testing with the links indicates that I am going to get relief with the
ionice
command and the --bwlimit
rsync parameter. My backup disk is a USB, possibly older, and apparently it is not up to the speed demands that my computer is capable of asking for.– Charles Green
Dec 17 at 16:20
@CharlesGreen Yes I suspected the
ionice
and --bwlimit
options when I read the links but could not spot definitive reference for you.– WinEunuuchs2Unix
Dec 17 at 16:21
@CharlesGreen Yes I suspected the
ionice
and --bwlimit
options when I read the links but could not spot definitive reference for you.– WinEunuuchs2Unix
Dec 17 at 16:21
|
show 1 more comment
Thanks for contributing an answer to Ask Ubuntu!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faskubuntu.com%2fquestions%2f1100937%2fhow-can-i-limit-page-cache-buffer-size%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
@Fabby Not exactly a duplicate.. My swap is larger than need be, and I like keeping it around - but I'd really like to limit the amount of page/buffer cache that
rsync
consumes. There is a programnocache
which I think works, butrsync
then does not output progress indicators.– Charles Green
Dec 15 at 23:03
Read the answer in its entirety and don't stop reading when it says "If you've got a server, that's it". The nifty trick comes last.
– Fabby
Dec 15 at 23:10
@Fabby I'm treating this like an XY problem and posted an answer to change
rsync
behavior rather than swapiness. With--inplace
argumentrsync
will do block writes rather than buffering. If I did my homework properly that is :)– WinEunuuchs2Unix
Dec 16 at 1:04
Close Vote retracted, Answer upvoted! @WinEunuuchs2Unix
– Fabby
Dec 16 at 1:18