On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 03:50:11PM -0400, Kris Moore wrote: > On 08/23/2012 13:10, Jeremy Messenger wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Kris Moore <kris_at_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-ports_at_freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe_at_freebsd.org" Do you have an example of what information you are trying to get out of that list of packages? Or even better do you have a sample of your script so that I can convert it to pkgng? (For your informations most of the scripts people gave me, that I converted to pkgng are faster with pkgng) regards, Bapt
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:30 UTC