On 08/23/2012 13:10, Jeremy Messenger wrote: > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Kris Moore <k...@pcbsd.org> wrote: >> On 08/23/2012 12:26, Jeffrey Bouquet wrote: >>> I am following with dread the planned implementation of the deprecation of >>> /var/db/pkg as a package registry... I use each /var/db/pkg directory as a >>> database into the port installation/status, using >>> sed/grep/portmaster/portmanager/.sh scripts/find/pipes etc... to fix stuff. >>> For instance, an upgrade py26 > py27. >>> cd /var/db/pkg >>> ls -lac | grep py26 >>> ls -lac | grep python >>> as the more simple example. >>> .... >>> With due respect to its developers and the persons who agree that >>> the package tools could be upgraded, the mandatory >>> usage of a front-end database to a file directory one >>> is here viewd as mutt-only-mbox, registry-and-bsod rather >>> than /etc/local/rc files, deprecation of >>> sed/grep/find/locate/.sh/portmaster/portmanager as tools to fixup/upgrade >>> the ports that are registered; >>> ... >>> I see concurrently too few tests on lower-end p2, p3 as to whether >>> pkg can run with lesser memory machines (routers...) (pfsense) >>> ... >>> I suspect stalling of successful frontends to bsd (pc-bsd, ghostbsd, >>> pfsense..) due to less-reliability, more-possibility of bugs.. >>> >> This is of some concern to me as well. A number of our utilities / >> scripts rely on checking /var/db/pkg as a means to test if a particular >> package is installed. This is often much faster than running the pkg_* >> commands, especially when we may be checking thousands of packages in a >> single run. It will be some work to adjust our utilities to using the >> various "pkg" commands now, but it can be done. What worries me is >> performance. If this is significantly slower, it may cause some issues >> on our end. > Guys, please test it before you say anything. Otherwise it's going to > be moved forward without you. > >
Well, it was about time I got to doing a benchmark of this anyway :) I did quick benchmark of how one of our utilities parses through a list of 1k packages on a newer i5 system: First test, using /var/db/pkg/<pkg> check we have been doing: 0.178s 0:00.31 54.8% 0.123s 0:00.26 61.5% 0.099s 0:00.15 60.0% Second test, using "pkg info <pkg>": 5.347s 0:11.41 91.7% 5.444s 0:11.52 91.3% 5.878s 0:11.32 91.4% The pkg info command is quite a bit slower in this case, but 5 seconds isn't horrible. Now I ran the same benchmark on a slower 1.66gz Atom system, checking about 1200~ packages: First test, using /var/db/pkg/<pkg> check we have been doing: 0.604s 0:00.76 86.8% 0.622s 0:00.77 84.4% 0.614s 0:00.73 90.4% Second test, using "pkg info <pkg>": 28.507s 0:54.80 99.1% 28.282s 0:54.60 99.4% 28.302s 0:54.52 99.4% Now this is what concerns me a bit. It took closer to 30 seconds, which is quite a while to wait, especially if a utility like ours has to run these checks when it starts up, to show the user whats installed / not installed on the system. The only way around It I've found is to do a quick "pkg info" on the entire DB, dump that to a list, then begin to grep through that list for each item, but it still takes 10~ seconds on the atom. That may be what I end up having to do, but it still stinks to go from a half a second startup, to 10 seconds each time. Any other ideas on how to do this faster with the new pkgng? -- Kris Moore PC-BSD Software iXsystems _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"