Is there a better way to transfer data that doesn't use so much cache?

Wayne Davison wayne at
Fri Aug 5 05:20:39 UTC 2022

On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 7:10 PM Dan Stromberg wrote:

> However, if you transfer a large amount of data and do not intend to
> retransmit that data any time soon, then the memory isn't really put to
> good use, and can actually cause your system to slow down significantly -
> particularly if there's a lot of such data transferred.

I have always rejected overcomplicating rsync with cache control code (the
complexity of a --drop-cache patch I saw was quite horrifying).  In the
past I pointed people towards as one way to
get posix_fadvise used by an rsync copy.  That project now apparently
suggests creating a memory-bounded cgroup, which sounds interesting.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the rsync mailing list