Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 21:40:48 +0100 From: Brad Knowles <blk@skynet.be> To: Ben Rosengart <ben@skunk.org> Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: bzip2 in src tree Message-ID: <v04220806b4b266a904a3@[195.238.1.121]> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0001241314370.14446-100000@penelope.skunk.org> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0001241314370.14446-100000@penelope.skunk.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 1:17 PM -0500 2000/1/24, Ben Rosengart wrote: > And the time and disk space required to make world. No thank you. What is the time & disk space requirements without bzip2? I recall multiple hours to do this, and hundreds of MB, but then maybe I'm mis-remembering things. What does bzip2 add to this mix? Doing `cd /usr/ports/archivers/bzip2; /usr/bin/time -alp make` results in the following: >> real 18.35 >> user 5.49 >> sys 8.24 Hmm. Under eighteen seconds to get the port, check the signature, untar it, apply any necessary patches, and build it. Not bad! Certainly not something I'd write home complaining about. >> 2376 maximum resident set size >> 318 average shared memory size >> 280 average unshared data size >> 130 average unshared stack size >> 73059 page reclaims >> 77 page faults >> 0 swaps >> 112 block input operations >> 200 block output operations >> 0 messages sent >> 0 messages received >> 0 signals received >> 3618 voluntary context switches >> 7822 involuntary context switches This on a rather busy Freenix Top 100 news peering server (running 3.2-RELEASE, so it's probably not as fast as it could be, especially with the VM changes in -CURRENT). Granted, it is a dual PIII@450 w/ 1MB L2 cache per processor and 1GB RAM, but that doesn't mean that this machine isn't pretty heavily loaded. What is the percentage of additional time and disk space required? I calculate that the additional disk space required is right around 2MB in /usr/ports/archivers/bzip2. This doesn't seem to be a whole lot to me. > Remember that the only win here is if bzip is used in an infrastructural > capacity (e.g. for packages and other install stuff), and it has been > pointed out that the savings on disk space are offset by the additional > memory requirements. If it won't be used for infrastructure, then why > can't it stay in ports? Actually, I think it would be useful in an infrastructural capacity. In particular, I believe that it would be worthwhile to compress the tarballs used for ports and packages with bzip2, or at least make that an option so that the CD-ROMs we produce can have more ports and packages on that first CD (which appears to be the only thing some morons look at). -- These are my opinions and should not be taken as official Skynet policy _________________________________________________________________________ |o| Brad Knowles, <blk@skynet.be> Belgacom Skynet NV/SA |o| |o| Systems Architect, Mail/News/FTP/Proxy Admin Rue Col. Bourg, 124 |o| |o| Phone/Fax: +32-2-706.13.11/726.93.11 B-1140 Brussels |o| |o| http://www.skynet.be Belgium |o| \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ Unix is like a wigwam -- no Gates, no Windows, and an Apache inside. Unix is very user-friendly. It's just picky who its friends are. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?v04220806b4b266a904a3>