Deprecation of portsnap (was: Proposed ports git transition schedule)

[Peter Jeremy]

On 2021-Apr-11 14:27:27 +0200, Helge Oldach <freebsd at oldach.net> wrote:
>Peter Jeremy via freebsd-ports wrote on Sun, 11 Apr 2021 00:52:11 +0200 (CEST):
>> Following the SVN to GIT migration, portsnap is now the only practical
>> way to use ports on a low-memory system.  I've done some experiments
>> and standard git has a 2GB working set to checkout a ports tree.
>
>However checking out is a one-time action with ports as there is only
>one branch (switching frequently between main and quarterly is probably
>not very sensible on a limited machine). git pull is significantly more
>lightweight, I've just seen some 200M RSS. That should work well even on
>a 512M machine. Probably much better than gitup in constrained memory?

Except that git will arbitrarily and randomly decide that it needs to
run "gc" - which is similarly extravagant in memory usage.  Last time
I found one running, it thrashed that poor VM for 3 days.

Ignoring that, a "git up -ff" on a ports tree peaks with 2×1GB processes,
though it looks like the working set size might only be ~350MB.

-- 
Peter Jeremy
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 963 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20210412/1709f933/attachment.sig>