Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 15 Jan 2012 13:01:58 -0600 | From | Mike Mestnik <> | Subject | Re: Chronic resource starvation. |
| |
On 01/15/12 06:08, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Sat, 2012-01-14 at 14:21 -0600, Mike Mestnik wrote: >> On 01/13/12 21:17, Mike Mestnik wrote: >>> I've dealt with applications taking extended time off for a number of >>> years. I typically attribute it to applications being overly zealous >>> about eating memory as most every application tends to do these days. I >>> had always figured that there a likely plenty of ppl complaining and I >>> didn't want to get the boiler plat answer that resources are cheap. >>> >>> I refuse to buy into the idea that Z computers can get an additional Y >>> resource to run application X, when instead application X could be >>> engineered once and for all. This ideology is not sustainable and >>> eventually will crash upon it's self. I call this Z * Y < X. The >>> application source becomes the single location where every computers >>> resources can be increased at the cost of much less then to adjust the >>> running environment of every location that the code may run. >>> >>> Here is a 84MB video that demonstrates the issue. >>> http://j.mp/wavbCO >>> http://bitly.com/wavbCO+ >> I'm glad to see a number of you have clicked on this link. >> >> Does this behavior look normal or is it just my system? If it is normal >> how difficult would it be to make corrections and would those >> corrections likely be kernel or application related? > That "Backup complete" makes me suspect a classic case of IO-itis. If > bits of your GUI were pushed out or ram (or weren't previously used), > and live on a disk you're beating hell out of, you get to experience > horrid interactivity while those missing bits are being retrieved. Thank you for the reply!
That's DVDShrink, copies from optical drive(slow) to disk(fast-ish?). http://www.dvdshrink.info/
That wouldn't explain why the monitor(gkrellm) stopped updating, every part of that is pooling like top would. Gkrellm indicates disk activity and it shows the backup complete on sr1 and a backup in progress on sr0, however neither of these operations rate on Disk or sda.
I wouldn't suspect that 16MB/s could saturate an HD disk, perhaps I can buffer this better?
> -Mike >
| |