# as per upstream...
tag 478437 wontfix
thanks

* Olivier Berger [Fri, 21 Mar 2008 20:32:29 +0100]:

> It seems to me updatedb.mlocate is issueing a lot too many calls to
> stat64() on /etc/mtab, as seen stracing the process execution.

Hello. I forwarded this bug report to upstream and here's their
response:

-8<-
Thanks for your report.

This happens in `src/updatedb.c:is_bind_mount()`.  Some bind mounts can
not be identified by comparing `st_dev`. The only way to identify them is
to check the path is not one of known bind mount paths, and to make sure
the list of known bind mount paths is current.

Keeping the list current is important because `updatedb` can run for
several minutes and it could unnecessarily overload the network if it did
not exclude a mount point that had been mounted after updatedb was
started.

Refreshing the list only once per second (or other small interval) does
not help because checking the time interval would require as many system
calls as checking whether `/etc/mtab` has changed.  Refreshing the list
only once per e.g. 100 directories scanned would decrease the number of
system calls, but it would make `updatedb` unreliable: if one directory
from the "batch" of 100 directories were an unavailable NFS mount, the
time to scan the "batch" could be many minutes, and bind mounts mounted in
the meantime over other directories in the batch would not be noticed.

The `mlocate` implementation does focus on performance, but correctness
always comes first.  The overhead measured in Debian #478437] is less
than 3% of real time, which I consider quite acceptable.
->8-

The URL for the upstream bug report is:

  https://fedorahosted.org/mlocate/ticket/1

-- 
Adeodato Simó                                     dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer                                  adeodato at debian.org
 
Testing can show the presence of bugs, but not their absence.
                -- Dijkstra




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to