Re: two more architectures?
On Sunday 27 October 2002 20:16, Justin Ryan wrote: you are also assuming Debian devels have access to such hardware. I am personally still using a pII 400. Our users tend to have better hardware than we do these days. IANAD, but afaik all source packages are/can be built on all available archs using debian's machines.. One maintainer mentioned recently that his package built on the Debian/s390 although he had no direct access to such a machine. Flame me if I'm wrong ;p -Justin you are correct. It would however mean finding two more machines to be autobuilders and maintaining them as well. Plus as Colin mentioned the extra mirror space. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: two more architectures?
Hi Colin! On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Colin Watson wrote: On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 07:43:02PM -0400, Oleg wrote: [...] As to compiling from deb sources (some else mentioned it in this thread), the one big inconvenience is that apt-get upgrade will overwrite your optimized program as soon as its next [sub]version is available. There are plenty of well-documented ways round that, depending on exactly what behaviour you want. There's also apt-src/apt-build to help you manage it automatically. Could you please elaborate a bit more on where exactly this is covered? I'm interested in it too. (I agree with you on the other points you mentioned.) Greetings, Holger -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: two more architectures?
On Sunday 27 October 2002 16:16, Colin Watson wrote: On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 07:43:02PM -0400, Oleg wrote: Colin Watson wrote: You get most of the speed increases by recompiling a very small number of things. This is true for applications in the following wording you get most of the speed increase by optimizing small parts of the program. For something like Debian however, you can't possibly know in advance where the users' bottleneck will happen to be. BTW, Gentoo users say their systems feel a lot faster overall. That's probably because they're using gcc 3.2 and ELF prelinking already (at a guess). This is coming to Debian, but requires more transitional work. Anyway, feel doesn't wash. Every time this comes up the answer is to request a real benchmark: to my knowledge the only time someone's ever provided one is in the case of openssl, which nowadays in unstable has versions optimized for a number of processes. You also have to find out what options they compiled with and against what libraries. Debian may link in more functionality or use a slighlty less optimized (for CPU anyway) version. I have also seen that Mandrake (and perhaps others) use the optimized glibc we used to ship. We found it to cause stability problems. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: two more architectures?
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 09:13:18AM +0100, Holger Rauch wrote: On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Colin Watson wrote: On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 07:43:02PM -0400, Oleg wrote: As to compiling from deb sources (some else mentioned it in this thread), the one big inconvenience is that apt-get upgrade will overwrite your optimized program as soon as its next [sub]version is available. There are plenty of well-documented ways round that, depending on exactly what behaviour you want. There's also apt-src/apt-build to help you manage it automatically. Could you please elaborate a bit more on where exactly this is covered? http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/apt-howto/ch-apt-get.en.html#s-pin Heh, now that I look for it I can't find actual documentation of the simpler method, although I'm sure you could hunt it down in list archives. You can edit debian/changelog and change the version number, either by a tiny notch (0.0.1) to prevent apt from overwriting it with the current version, or by an enormous leap (prepend 1: or increase any epoch that's already there). -- Colin Watson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: two more architectures?
On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 05:21:35PM +, Colin Watson wrote: You get most of the speed increases by recompiling a very small number of things. It's not worth the added complexity trying to do it for everything. Which small number of things is that? We got libc from 1 post. What else? -- http://www.torrin.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: two more architectures?
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 03:41:37PM -0800, Torrin wrote: On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 05:21:35PM +, Colin Watson wrote: You get most of the speed increases by recompiling a very small number of things. It's not worth the added complexity trying to do it for everything. Which small number of things is that? We got libc from 1 post. What else? Random guess: kernel (which anybody halfway serious about performance does anyway), libc, XFree86, openssl, maybe a few other highly CPU-intensive things. Anything that hits memory, disk, or other I/O heavily isn't worth it. Of course, I haven't done any benchmarks either. :) -- Colin Watson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
two more architectures?
Hi Why doesn't Debian add two more architectures: P4 and Athlon4? A bit more space will be used on Debian mirrors, but the bandwidth will not increase (unless more people start using Debian) and the extra maintenance in most cases will be limited to CPU-specific compiler options. The obvious advantage is the speed increase from better optimizations. Cheers, Oleg -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: two more architectures?
On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 12:49:04PM -0400, Oleg wrote: Hi Why doesn't Debian add two more architectures: P4 and Athlon4? A bit more space will be used on Debian mirrors, but the bandwidth will not increase (unless more people start using Debian) and the extra maintenance in most cases will be limited to CPU-specific compiler options. The obvious advantage is the speed increase from better optimizations. Cheers, Oleg Why can't you just build the packages from Debian source and tweak the compile flags? The maintainers should worry about other things than getting the optimization tweaked for processors that are still expensive and still not the norm for Debian. Even so, it is not like a lot of the packages NEED that level of optimization. I think saving half of a nanosecond by recompiling the 'ls' command with P4 operations is just plain silly. If we're going to do this, let's do it with packages that have a significant increase in speed by doing so. These are the only ones that I can think of off the top of my head: The kernel The Gimp libssl OpenSSH gpg(?) Even with that, it might just be easier to compile from source. My two cents, -- -- Edward Guldemond Key fingerprint: 29FF 2969 A04E F934 3F03 4329 BC56 3AA7 2F57 6735 msg09464/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: two more architectures?
On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 12:49:04PM -0400, Oleg wrote: Why doesn't Debian add two more architectures: P4 and Athlon4? A bit more space will be used on Debian mirrors, We're losing mirrors due to disk space concerns as it is. but the bandwidth will not increase (unless more people start using Debian) and the extra maintenance in most cases will be limited to CPU-specific compiler options. The obvious advantage is the speed increase from better optimizations. You get most of the speed increases by recompiling a very small number of things. It's not worth the added complexity trying to do it for everything. -- Colin Watson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: two more architectures?
On Sunday 27 October 2002 08:49, Oleg wrote: Hi Why doesn't Debian add two more architectures: P4 and Athlon4? A bit more space will be used on Debian mirrors, but the bandwidth will not increase (unless more people start using Debian) and the extra maintenance in most cases will be limited to CPU-specific compiler options. The obvious advantage is the speed increase from better optimizations. Cheers, Oleg you are also assuming Debian devels have access to such hardware. I am personally still using a pII 400. Our users tend to have better hardware than we do these days. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: two more architectures?
Oleg said: Hi Why doesn't Debian add two more architectures: P4 and Athlon4? A bit more space will be used on Debian mirrors, but the bandwidth will not increase (unless more people start using Debian) and the extra maintenance in most cases will be limited to CPU-specific compiler options. The obvious advantage is the speed increase from better optimizations. I don't see how those could be considered architechures. they run the same instruction sets. and it wouldn't be a bit more space, it'd be a LOT more space. running my own debian mirror for my former company just i386 for testing and stable last I checked was nearly 25GB(including source). the security tree was quite a bit less though. I would expect if someone were to add 2 more trees it would take another 15-20GB. Disk space may be cheap on some low end systems but if you want a reliable system that means raid, and usually also means SCSI. My former company had one of their 6-disk raid-10 boxes powered by 3ware kernel panic because of a failed disk this past week, so I am not convinced that IDE raid is reliable just yet. nate -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: two more architectures?
On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 11:56:18AM -0800, nate wrote: and it wouldn't be a bit more space, it'd be a LOT more space. running my own debian mirror for my former company just i386 for testing and stable last I checked was nearly 25GB(including source). Might want to check those figures again. Just checked my mirror's disk usage. I'm currently at ~27 Gig used. My mirror consists of the following: Archs: - i386 - PPC Dists w/source and non-US (for all listed Archs): - stable - testing - unstable Open Office w/source (for all listed Archs): - testing - unstable Add to all of this security updates and ISOs for the 7 CDs (plus the non-US version of CD 1). Looks like your figure is quite inaccurate to me. The CD images alone are ~4.7 Gig. I would expect if someone were to add 2 more trees it would take another 15-20GB. See above. -- Jamin W. Collins -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: two more architectures?
On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 02:03:56PM -0800, nate wrote: gumby:/raid/debian/archive# du -s -h 24G . (snip) I believe its a complete archive, because I've never had any trouble installing any packages or building things from source. Looks more than complete based on what I have here :/mirror/debian# du -sh 21G Looks like you're attempting to exclude the sections and files that you don't want to mirror from the official archive, rather than only including the files that you need. What tool are you using to create/update the archive? I'm using debmirror and a simple control bash script. -- Jamin W. Collins -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: two more architectures?
Jamin W. Collins said: Looks like you're attempting to exclude the sections and files that you don't want to mirror from the official archive, rather than only including the files that you need. What tool are you using to create/update the archive? I'm using debmirror and a simple control bash script. an rsync script that I found on the debian site.. http://www.debian.org/mirror/anonftpsync it works pretty good i use a different variation of the same script to grab stuff from nonUS and security as well. nate -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: two more architectures?
Colin Watson wrote: You get most of the speed increases by recompiling a very small number of things. This is true for applications in the following wording you get most of the speed increase by optimizing small parts of the program. For something like Debian however, you can't possibly know in advance where the users' bottleneck will happen to be. BTW, Gentoo users say their systems feel a lot faster overall. As to compiling from deb sources (some else mentioned it in this thread), the one big inconvenience is that apt-get upgrade will overwrite your optimized program as soon as its next [sub]version is available. Oleg -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: two more architectures?
On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 07:43:02PM -0400, Oleg wrote: Colin Watson wrote: You get most of the speed increases by recompiling a very small number of things. This is true for applications in the following wording you get most of the speed increase by optimizing small parts of the program. For something like Debian however, you can't possibly know in advance where the users' bottleneck will happen to be. BTW, Gentoo users say their systems feel a lot faster overall. As to compiling from deb sources (some else mentioned it in this thread), the one big inconvenience is that apt-get upgrade will overwrite your optimized program as soon as its next [sub]version is available. The best you could probably ask for would be an i686 distribution. Also, you might start with individual packages like libc and first then other libraries... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: two more architectures?
On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 07:43:02PM -0400, Oleg wrote: Colin Watson wrote: You get most of the speed increases by recompiling a very small number of things. This is true for applications in the following wording you get most of the speed increase by optimizing small parts of the program. For something like Debian however, you can't possibly know in advance where the users' bottleneck will happen to be. BTW, Gentoo users say their systems feel a lot faster overall. That's probably because they're using gcc 3.2 and ELF prelinking already (at a guess). This is coming to Debian, but requires more transitional work. Anyway, feel doesn't wash. Every time this comes up the answer is to request a real benchmark: to my knowledge the only time someone's ever provided one is in the case of openssl, which nowadays in unstable has versions optimized for a number of processes. Bottom line, when you're talking about adding 10Gb or so to the archive size it's a trade-off between helping users and not pissing off mirrors. If you forget about the latter, you'll quickly lose the former too, especially when there are ways to help users without imposing that 10Gb hit. As to compiling from deb sources (some else mentioned it in this thread), the one big inconvenience is that apt-get upgrade will overwrite your optimized program as soon as its next [sub]version is available. There are plenty of well-documented ways round that, depending on exactly what behaviour you want. There's also apt-src/apt-build to help you manage it automatically. -- Colin Watson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: two more architectures?
On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 03:48:21PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote: The best you could probably ask for would be an i686 distribution. Even then, you can rest assured this is going to be a DIY project and not something Debian will likely take on. Partially logistics being too great to accomplish, partially because we *really* don't want fracturing of single architectures like we have seen in Red Hat, Mandrake, etc. We are NOT Red Hat. -- Baloo msg09565/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: two more architectures?
you are also assuming Debian devels have access to such hardware. I am personally still using a pII 400. Our users tend to have better hardware than we do these days. IANAD, but afaik all source packages are/can be built on all available archs using debian's machines.. One maintainer mentioned recently that his package built on the Debian/s390 although he had no direct access to such a machine. Flame me if I'm wrong ;p -Justin signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
