[sldev] "Unreferenced" assets

Vex Streeter vexstreeter at gmail.com
Mon May 19 19:42:35 PDT 2008


Nope - that is exactly what I was asking - I was interested how much 
this process loads the asset servers in the time between GCs, and I 
suppose the cost to actually perform the GCs, depending on how difficult 
it is to find all the references.  Presumably undelivered 
ImprovedInstantMessages count as references to such items? My interest 
is in fixing the related problems of lost information 
(objects/groupoffers/etc)  due to IM caps and due to viewer crashes 
prior to going through delivered messages. I'm relieved that these sorts 
of things are subject to GC.

Cheers!

Sean Lynch wrote:
> GC is the only way assets will get deleted (other than single 
> reference assets like scripted attachments, but that code is not in 
> production yet), so yes in any case that llGiveInventory needs to make 
> a new asset, but I believe that unless you're giving a no-copy object, 
> a new asset isn't created by llGiveInventory, just a new reference to 
> the existing asset.
>
> Am I missing something about the question? Leaked assets like this 
> shouldn't harm the giver in any way. They just take up space on the 
> asset servers until we get around to cleaning them up. This is way 
> simpler and less error prone than trying to detect the leakage in real 
> time and clean stuff up right away: storage is cheap. Complexity in 
> code is not.



More information about the SLDev mailing list