[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: master under v. high load, bug WWW updates temporarily every 4h

On 13 Feb 1998, Christian Leutloff wrote:

> > This is pretty much everything with a sizeable ctime. First off,
> > it is interesting to note that their are three sources of load,
> > inetd, qmail and cron jobs. The 5000m on inetd is actually pretty
> > sickening, maybe we should be using proftpd (master gets alot of ftp
> > hits) and some sort of faster ident server..

proftpd is a good idea....except for the 'ls -lR' problem (i.e. it can't
do it). but it is vastly preferable to have a file called 'ls-lR.gz' in
each ftp directory anyway.

> Why are we using cron jobs for the regularly to do things, that last
> long!? It's very difficult to put them at the right time so that they
> aren't conflicting. Why aren't we using one shell script that runs
> these jobs one after another. 

run-parts fits the bill here. and maybe another script to allow
developers to register their script with run-parts (although it might
be better to do this manually). 

this would also allow (require!) writing scripts so that they were
run by user 'debian' - which is a good thing...gets away from the
ugly kludge of having important system stuff run out of people's home
directories (an practice i detest).

> So master has only to work on one big job. This should reduce the
> normal load of the machine *and* each job will be done faster as the
> machine isn't switching between processes that are using the same
> resources like the hard disc. The simultaneous usage kills all caching
> and other tuning mechanism.

it also seems that a few processes need to do ls -lR on the debian ftp
or www or bugs tree. it would make sense to have one job do that, save
the output in a known location, and then have every other script that
needs it use the file.

we can specify the order that scripts are run in by naming them in sort
order - e.g. "00ls-lR" runs before "99foo"

> I like the idea of reducing masters load by providing a more tree like
> mirror architecture.
> "James A.Treacy" <treacy@debian.org> writes:
> > Tim Sailer would be willing to let his machine be used for the same
> > purpose, but he's too short on disk space.
> Can't we use some of out donations to give this machine more disk
> space. Up to date mirrors are IMHO important for Debian.

sounds like a good idea....after all, what other use does debian have
for money?  IMO, debian should dispose of money as quickly as possible
by spending it on improvements to debian servers and/or giving it away
to any DFSG projects that need it....keeping just enough in the bank to
cover forseeable expenses for the next 3-6 months.


craig sanders

Reply to: