On Mon, 1 Jun 2015 17:15:42 +0100 Peter Robinson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Miroslav Suchý <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Dne 1.6.2015 v 16:58 Peter Robinson napsal(a): > >> And a lot of swap disk can cause the IO issues that you mention and > >> ultimately lead to performance problems. > > ... > >> What package set did you test this against? > > > > http://miroslav.suchy.cz/blog/archives/2015/05/28/increase_mock_performance_-_build_packages_in_memory/index.html > > 6th paragraph - answer to both questions. > > Blogs are great but it's also TL;DR .... sometimes bits here are > better. > > Kernel isn't a major issue compared to others. I'd like to see how > well it works for things like java, eclipse, libreoffice. To add some info, current configurations: Type / Memory / swap: arm / 4gb / 4gb buildvm / 10gb / 2gb buildhw / 20gb / 0gb The arm builders have 300GB drives. The buildvm's are on an iscsi lun and each has 150GB allocated. The lun is 4.5TB, and there's 650gb or so free on it. The buildhw's have 2 300GB drives in a raid, so 300 usable. So, on the arm and buildhw's we could add a 50GB swap probibly at the cost of the base / being down to 240-250gb. On the buildvm's we could only add 25GB or so, unless we increased the space (which we may be able to do down the road, but cannot now). The thing I find odd about this is that the linux kernel caching doesn't seem to be a win. Shouldn't it cache buildroot and such in memory anyhow? Or why is tmpfs performing so much better? We could also look at testing in staging and gather more data. kevin
pgpB_VIa6PlKJ.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- buildsys mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/buildsys
