Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 16:56:39 -0600 From: Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org> To: olli hauer <ohauer@gmx.de>, Kurt Jaeger <lists@opsec.eu> Cc: Torsten Zuehlsdorff <mailinglists@toco-domains.de>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Poudriere MFS support [was Re: Poudriere Timeout] Message-ID: <54C18027.7050002@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <54BD5EF8.4010201@gmx.de> References: <201501190145.t0J1jKvg006268@slippy.cwsent.com> <54BCF7C9.7090502@toco-domains.de> <20150119154822.GX44537@home.opsec.eu> <54BD3203.5050809@toco-domains.de> <20150119191834.GH83169@home.opsec.eu> <54BD5EF8.4010201@gmx.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --AM1piB8sDHU9qRTAwg8TIupbXtWM2M3eQ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 1/19/2015 1:46 PM, olli hauer wrote: > On 2015-01-19 20:18, Kurt Jaeger wrote: >> Hi! >> >>>>> Yes, i have. I've solved this problem by moving the build-jails of >>>>> poudriere to an memory disk. This make poudriere no longer io-bund = and >>>>> incredibly fast. And solve this issue ;) >> >>>> How did you do this ? I want to try this myself 8-} >> >>> I've hacked poudriere to run within a jail. >> >> Aha, the .m mountpoint. My test host has 32 GB, so 20 GB should not be= >> a problem. >> >> Testport: www/p5-Selenium-Remote-Driver on 10.1-amd64, 9.3-amd64 and 8= =2E4-i386. >> >> Results: >> >> old: 00:05:43 >> new: 00:05:11 >> >> old: 00:01:56 >> new: 00:00:12 >> >> old: 00:02:11 >> new: 00:00:14 >> >> Nice! >> >=20 > Hi Kurt, >=20 > are you running PD also in a jail? >=20 > If not PD can be tuned by setting MFSSIZE *or* USE_TMPFS in poudriere.c= onf. >=20 > On my system I have good results with 8 concurrent builds and MFSSIZE=3D= 6G or 'USE_TMPFS=3Dall'. > Fine tuning can be done with an additional SSD (look at `systat -iostat= ' during a build) >=20 > poudriere.conf: >=20 > # When building packages, a memory device can be used to speedup the bu= ild. > # Only one of MFSSIZE or USE_TMPFS is supported. TMPFS is generally fas= ter > # and will expand to the needed amount of RAM. MFS is a bit slower, but= is > # more mature and can have its memory usage capped. >=20 > # If set WRKDIRPREFIX will be mdmfs of the given size (mM or gG) > #MFSSIZE=3D4G >=20 > # Use tmpfs(5) > ... > # all - Run the entire build in memory, including builder jails. > USE_TMPFS=3Dall >=20 Why do people pick MFS over TMPFS? I've found MFS/UFS significantly slower than TMPFS on FreeBSD 10+. I'm very inclined to remove MFS support from Poudriere as it is far less supported as TMPFS and not tested well. I suspect the reason is due to size constraint not being supported in the past. TMPFS_LIMIT can be used just as MFSSIZE can be. --=20 Regards, Bryan Drewery --AM1piB8sDHU9qRTAwg8TIupbXtWM2M3eQ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUwYAoAAoJEDXXcbtuRpfPwD4IANj6WJ7GFnx23ApOkomOMz+E kz6tkDgxO4YKLpeRH2LG0alkBLisTz0U947U7gxwBgp0rupjPhIWRgoq/5MNLVCQ Np4gJQDCt9ZKHnLwHsR+AH5PzPz8mDIFSE6YwqBLkHUJI/plmw2WlIqwcHAYZRJn WuwKDpbzveVqekev9RMJPHy1VdSbTQpErr7Bstd/3zS16Zxr4E+FNMNnHqEyLRSa F/rCImtHWpedZKMqmoLLCnUKk5tTMJZ3webbLEHeT7iTTzxMUT5I/Y4ZGb4VBCrf NmlzlnnSCtRWLzLebBIAqnZep/FG7rPj4IiWjoGNteXv1THImBXHI4h/pd1Vn6s= =o4kG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --AM1piB8sDHU9qRTAwg8TIupbXtWM2M3eQ--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?54C18027.7050002>