| 1 |
On 24/12/19 18:35, Dale wrote: |
| 2 |
> I'll try to see if I can get the actual error here in a bit, either a |
| 3 |
> picture or the actual text. I only need one line because it is the same |
| 4 |
> for them all except the name and path of the file. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
I've just had an idea ... |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
I think it was on LWN they were talking about how a directory scan on |
| 9 |
linux can take absolutely ages, because as it goes through it pulls |
| 10 |
everything into cache and knackers the system. (Which is why a lot of |
| 11 |
programs go through the grief of using direct rather than buffered io.) |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Not sure which developer it was, but they've brought in a new mode which |
| 14 |
leaves cache untouched (sort of). If it can retrieve the file from |
| 15 |
cache, it does so. If it's not in cache, it pulls it in, processes it, |
| 16 |
and drops it. That way the cache does not fill up with recently accessed |
| 17 |
files that are never going to be touched again, and your system doesn't |
| 18 |
start swapping like mad to save all this unwanted data. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Maybe when that is enabled in plasmashell it'll fix the problem ... how |
| 21 |
big is this directory that's being scanned? If it's similar or larger in |
| 22 |
size to your ram that could be the problem. Even if it's rather less, if |
| 23 |
other programs are using up your ram ... |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Cheers, |
| 26 |
Wol |
Archives