# Kopia cache limit bug

**URL:** <https://kopia.discourse.group/t/kopia-cache-limit-bug/1882>\
**Category:** General Topics\
**Created:** [March 14, 2023, 7:57am UTC](https://kopia.discourse.group/t/kopia-cache-limit-bug/1882 "2023-03-14T07:57:25Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 11\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![kopanla](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/kopia.discourse.group/kopanla/32/243_2.png) [@kopanla](https://kopia.discourse.group/u/kopanla)\
**Post date:** [March 14, 2023, 7:57am UTC](https://kopia.discourse.group/t/kopia-cache-limit-bug/1882/1 "2023-03-14T07:57:25Z")

</div>

`kopia cache` shows this information

`kopia\2afbd561528f7fbd\contents: 70954 files 36.5 GB (limit 5.2 GB ...)`

What does limit 5.2GB actually mean?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![IcePic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@IcePic](https://kopia.discourse.group/u/IcePic)\
**Post date:** [March 15, 2023, 1:20pm UTC](https://kopia.discourse.group/t/kopia-cache-limit-bug/1882/2 "2023-03-15T13:20:49Z")

</div>

I think that is the default size of the local kopia cache, so it will try its best to be below 5G unless told to use another size. The local cache contains lists of files+dates and checksums that exist on the remote side so that your local instance of kopia knows when it can skip sending a chunk of data, since it exists on the remote side already. If the local cache is too small, it will have to re-fetch these lists from the remote more often.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![kopanla](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/kopia.discourse.group/kopanla/32/243_2.png) [@kopanla](https://kopia.discourse.group/u/kopanla)\
**Post date:** [March 15, 2023, 4:35pm UTC](https://kopia.discourse.group/t/kopia-cache-limit-bug/1882/3 "2023-03-15T16:35:11Z")

</div>

> it will try its best to be below 5G

What’s the range for 'try its best"? My cache size is 36.5GB (see also the output mentioned in the OP), but the limit is only 5.2GB. It seems like a bug, right?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![budy](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/kopia.discourse.group/budy/32/38_2.png) [@budy](https://kopia.discourse.group/u/budy)\
**Post date:** [March 17, 2023, 5:46pm UTC](https://kopia.discourse.group/t/kopia-cache-limit-bug/1882/4 "2023-03-17T17:46:19Z")

</div>

Here is good thread about Kopia and its cache usage:

> [@Cache size recommandation](https://kopia.discourse.group/t/cache-size-recommandation/562):
>
> Hi, One of my VMs has a small root filesystem and kopia cache takes almost 50% of the available size. Do you have a cache size recommandation, especially if I want to shrink it?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![kopanla](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/kopia.discourse.group/kopanla/32/243_2.png) [@kopanla](https://kopia.discourse.group/u/kopanla)\
**Post date:** [March 20, 2023, 3:40am UTC](https://kopia.discourse.group/t/kopia-cache-limit-bug/1882/5 "2023-03-20T03:40:53Z")

</div>

Thanks. Could you please comment, whether it is a bug or normal that Kopia exceeds the cache limit of 5GB by 30GB?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![budy](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/kopia.discourse.group/budy/32/38_2.png) [@budy](https://kopia.discourse.group/u/budy)\
**Post date:** [March 20, 2023, 7:29am UTC](https://kopia.discourse.group/t/kopia-cache-limit-bug/1882/6 "2023-03-20T07:29:18Z")

</div>

Are you running a Kopia client/server setup or are you running KopiaUI?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![kopanla](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/kopia.discourse.group/kopanla/32/243_2.png) [@kopanla](https://kopia.discourse.group/u/kopanla)\
**Post date:** [March 20, 2023, 9:53am UTC](https://kopia.discourse.group/t/kopia-cache-limit-bug/1882/7 "2023-03-20T09:53:45Z")

</div>

kopia cli

* * *

(Post must be at least 20 characters0

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![budy](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/kopia.discourse.group/budy/32/38_2.png) [@budy](https://kopia.discourse.group/u/budy)\
**Post date:** [March 24, 2023, 7:33am UTC](https://kopia.discourse.group/t/kopia-cache-limit-bug/1882/8 "2023-03-24T07:33:51Z")

</div>

Ok, well… that doesn’t tell us much. I was referring to your setup in general. Do you run only KopiaUI (which includes a local instance of Kopia server under the hood), or do you run a Kopia server on one host and a Kopia client on another.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![kopanla](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/kopia.discourse.group/kopanla/32/243_2.png) [@kopanla](https://kopia.discourse.group/u/kopanla)\
**Post date:** [March 26, 2023, 2:56pm UTC](https://kopia.discourse.group/t/kopia-cache-limit-bug/1882/9 "2023-03-26T14:56:02Z")

</div>

I don’t use neither. With “kopia cli” I meant to say “I run Kopia from the command line interface”. No server, no UI - AFAIK.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![budy](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/kopia.discourse.group/budy/32/38_2.png) [@budy](https://kopia.discourse.group/u/budy)\
**Post date:** [March 30, 2023, 1:53pm UTC](https://kopia.discourse.group/t/kopia-cache-limit-bug/1882/10 "2023-03-30T13:53:09Z")

</div>

Alright… I went to check on my repos and sure enough, the size of my cache folder is way higher than has been configred in the repo config. Its no big issue for me, as I do have a couple of TBs on SSD available, which is where I put the cache folder onto, but 524G vs. 32G (configured) is a lot.

However, it looks like, I need to rework my repo config file, which is rather old. As the latest Kopia docs suggest, options have been renamed or reworked.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![kopanla](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/kopia.discourse.group/kopanla/32/243_2.png) [@kopanla](https://kopia.discourse.group/u/kopanla)\
**Post date:** [March 30, 2023, 5:49pm UTC](https://kopia.discourse.group/t/kopia-cache-limit-bug/1882/11 "2023-03-30T17:49:40Z")

</div>

Thanks. So that looks like a bug indeed …
