Poudriere MFS support [was Re: Poudriere Timeout]
bdrewery at FreeBSD.org
Thu Jan 22 22:56:27 UTC 2015
On 1/19/2015 1:46 PM, olli hauer wrote:
> On 2015-01-19 20:18, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
>>>>> 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 8.4-i386.
>> old: 00:05:43
>> new: 00:05:11
>> old: 00:01:56
>> new: 00:00:12
>> old: 00:02:11
>> new: 00:00:14
> Hi Kurt,
> are you running PD also in a jail?
> If not PD can be tuned by setting MFSSIZE *or* USE_TMPFS in poudriere.conf.
> On my system I have good results with 8 concurrent builds and MFSSIZE=6G or 'USE_TMPFS=all'.
> Fine tuning can be done with an additional SSD (look at `systat -iostat' during a build)
> # When building packages, a memory device can be used to speedup the build.
> # Only one of MFSSIZE or USE_TMPFS is supported. TMPFS is generally faster
> # 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.
> # If set WRKDIRPREFIX will be mdmfs of the given size (mM or gG)
> # Use tmpfs(5)
> # all - Run the entire build in memory, including builder jails.
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.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the freebsd-ports