From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@coraid.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 08:23:03 -0400
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <034f42f5a19e3ebb5934011054ee1ed9@coraid.com>
In-Reply-To: <20090629050231.GS25893@gradx.cs.jhu.edu>
References: <1d5d51400906281813g649a72f7v8610b0311c7de5f@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090629050231.GS25893@gradx.cs.jhu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] when to use vac -q -d old.vac instead of simply vac
	-dold.vac
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 10cc8bdc-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 09:13:09AM +0800, Fernan Bolando wrote:
> > Why is -q not a default? Is there a reliability concern with that option?
>
> It uses an astronomically large amount of memory, if nothing else.
> Mirroring a little over 100MB of data from sources with vac -q occupies
> roughly 85MB in core.

one would think that 20 bytes per file + fixed buffer would be enough.

- erik