Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 23:39:00 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: UPDATING 20110730 Message-ID: <4E386064.3010904@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4E385943.1060703@FreeBSD.org> References: <4E345DBD.1090503@FreeBSD.org> <4E34B0BB.9050008@FreeBSD.org> <4E353A46.1050204@FreeBSD.org> <4E35A998.5060102@FreeBSD.org> <4E37F81F.7040902@FreeBSD.org> <4E384155.1080507@FreeBSD.org> <4E384C30.50105@FreeBSD.org> <4E385943.1060703@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on 02/08/2011 23:08 Doug Barton said the following: > On 08/02/2011 12:12, Andriy Gapon wrote: >> on 02/08/2011 21:26 Doug Barton said the following: >>> On 08/02/2011 06:14, Andriy Gapon wrote: >>>> Second, I think that portmaster could cache the origin => pkg mapping that it >>>> builds while working on port A, so that it can be readily re-used for port B. >>>> That could also include "negative" mapping where there is no installed pkg for a >>>> given origin. >>> >>> That's a reasonable idea, but moderately complex to do. I'll put it on >>> "the list" but it's not going to be a priority since in non-worst-case >>> scenarios it's generally quite fast as it is. >>> >>> Meanwhile thanks for digging further into your situation and confirming >>> that it's a local problem. >> >> Well, yes with a little bit of no. >> I will repeat myself: currently portmaster's performance relies on the fact that >> certain often used data originating from disk is actually cached in memory by >> the OS. > > And I will repeat myself, one last time. The assumptions that portmaster > makes are reasonable under typical conditions, but can be improved which > I will do in due course. However, your conditions are very non-typical, > including but not limited to: slow disk, small amount of ram, zfs on a > slow disk with a small amount of ram, poorly tuned zfs on a slow disk > with a small amount of ram, and a large'ish number of ports installed. Just a few small corrections: - the disks are not that slow (not sure how you deduced that): Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 - the RAM is not that small: 4GB - ZFS is not in such a bad environment as you portrayed it - ZFS is not so poorly tuned, ARC size above 1GB should be sufficient for a desktop-ish machine - the number of ports is not so large-ish for a desktop-ish machine > I get that you're disappointed with portmaster's performance under these > circumstances, and I've already said that I will do what I can, when I > can, to improve that. Hopefully I won't need to repeat myself again. :) I got this. -- Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4E386064.3010904>