From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 01:02:31 -0400
From: Nathaniel W Filardo <nwf@cs.jhu.edu>
To: fernanbolando@mailc.net,
	Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Message-ID: <20090629050231.GS25893@gradx.cs.jhu.edu>
References: <1d5d51400906281813g649a72f7v8610b0311c7de5f@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="jllsgs4PL/sXFNaa"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1d5d51400906281813g649a72f7v8610b0311c7de5f@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Subject: Re: [9fans] when to use vac -q -d old.vac instead of simply vac
	-d	old.vac
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 108eb208-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025


--jllsgs4PL/sXFNaa
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

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.

--nwf;

--jllsgs4PL/sXFNaa
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkpISuYACgkQTeQabvr9Tc+/6gCfQYAkQDJy7Z3CPyQ8i00Gwv66
ePsAn3eriVUm6MFXlnL6LsmSv4e+Zdfn
=LMJQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--jllsgs4PL/sXFNaa--