Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Removing large shared folder causes very high RAM usage #2250

Closed
ProactiveServices opened this issue Sep 8, 2015 · 5 comments
Closed

Removing large shared folder causes very high RAM usage #2250

ProactiveServices opened this issue Sep 8, 2015 · 5 comments
Labels
bug A problem with current functionality, as opposed to missing functionality (enhancement) frozen-due-to-age Issues closed and untouched for a long time, together with being locked for discussion

Comments

@ProactiveServices
Copy link
Member

I removed a shared folder of 509GB in 350 items. It took 15 minutes for Syncthing to finish "Cleaning data for dropped folder", during which it peaked at 5.2GB private bytes, and spent most of the time above 4GB. This strikes me as being a bit excessive!
@calmh
Copy link
Member

calmh commented Sep 8, 2015

Yeah, it does sound a bit excessive. You mean the folder contained 350 files, a bit over a gig each (for reproduction)?

@ProactiveServices
Copy link
Member Author

264 files, 86 folders. One folder had the bulk of the data with 481GB across 43 files, with file sizes ranging from ~1GB to ~48GB.

@AudriusButkevicius
Copy link
Member

Could this be the block map.

@calmh
Copy link
Member

calmh commented Sep 8, 2015

Could be, yes. Those are some fairly long lists of blocks passed around.

@uok
Copy link
Contributor

uok commented Sep 8, 2015

reminds me of #1938

@calmh calmh added the bug A problem with current functionality, as opposed to missing functionality (enhancement) label Nov 19, 2015
@calmh calmh modified the milestone: Unplanned Jan 1, 2016
@deroby deroby mentioned this issue Apr 21, 2017
Closed
@calmh calmh mentioned this issue May 4, 2017
Closed
@st-review st-review added the frozen-due-to-age Issues closed and untouched for a long time, together with being locked for discussion label Apr 23, 2018
@syncthing syncthing locked and limited conversation to collaborators Apr 23, 2018
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
bug A problem with current functionality, as opposed to missing functionality (enhancement) frozen-due-to-age Issues closed and untouched for a long time, together with being locked for discussion
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
5 participants
@calmh @AudriusButkevicius @ProactiveServices @uok @st-review