I hate makedbz.
alexk at demon.net
Fri Jul 27 08:26:27 UTC 2001
Ron Jarrell <jarrell at solaris.cc.vt.edu> writes:
> Ok, so this is the first time I've had to regenerate a history file
> since 2.2. What is *with* makedbz? I've got an 853 meg history
> file after makehistory ran. The old file had a bit over 16m entries
> in it, so a did a makedbz -s 20000000 -f history.n (leaving room for
> the fact that the server's been down now since early wed. morning,
> so I'm going to have to deal with a huge surge of backlog).
> Doing the makehistory, re-reading the entire spool, and building the
> ovdb files took 6 hours. In 20 more minutes the makedbz, which just
> has to build the offset index into the history.n file, is going to
> hit 24 hours, and still going strong. The io rates are very
> reasonable, there's about 3.5 gig of memory free on the system, and
> the other two processors are twiddling their thumbs.
What size are the history.n.hash and history.n.index - if they're
anything other than 0 you've spilled to disk and you should just kill
the makedbz & start again with a bigger -s.
Here's a box I'm running here:
bash-2.03$ ls -l history
-rw-rw-r-- 1 news news 785561421 Jul 27 08:23 history
bash-2.03$ time ~news/bin/makedbz -s 20000000
Its not quite as big a history as yours, but thats the kind of run
time you should be looking at.
Alex Kiernan, Principal Engineer, Development, Thus PLC
More information about the inn-workers