Hi, [Removing [email protected], but adding in [email protected] instead of [email protected] as Bob's mail never reached the aptitude maintainers as far as I can see.]
Bob Proulx wrote: > > $ vmstat -n 2 > > procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- -system-- > > ----cpu---- > > r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id > > wa > > 0 0 0 483308 25596 408892 0 0 0 0 46 125 0 1 99 > > 0 > > 1 0 0 478412 25596 408892 0 0 0 0 156 173 23 2 76 > > 0 > > 0 1 0 459580 25608 432576 0 0 0 1854 330 144 42 13 0 > > 45 > > 0 1 0 459340 25616 432576 0 0 0 2406 102 125 0 1 0 > > 99 > > 0 1 0 459216 25620 432576 0 0 0 2280 101 125 1 2 0 > > 98 > > ... > > The si/so values all look okay. So that refutes my hypothesis that > the machine was swapping. Yeah, aptitude doesn't need _that_ much RAM. I run it without swapping on boxes with 512 MB and even less. > And 1G of ram should be sufficient too. Definitely. > > OK, Bob, (sorry Otto) here's what happens when we hit Y to aptitude's > > > > "No packages will be installed, upgraded, or removed. > > 0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded. > > Need to get 0 B of archives. After unpacking 0 B will be used. > > Do you want to continue? [Y/n/?]" > > > > Which is the slowest thing I can recreate today. > > (It takes 28 seconds to do one big no-op.) Same here (EeePC 701, 680 MHz, 2 GB of RAM): aptitude full-upgrade 17.87s user 3.23s system 75% cpu 27.927 total (Fine for me though. I've got far slower boxes on which I run aptitude and are still happy with it. Of course I wouldn't mind if it would be faster though. :-) > I find aptitude to be extremely slow on any machine. Depends. It get's annoyingly slow due to swapping below 64 MB of RAM. But above, it's IMHO generally fine for what it does. Nevertheless at 32 MB of RAM, apt-get isn't really faster either nowadays. I guess that's mostly because of the impressively big choice Debian offers nowadays. > Your 900MHz 1G ram Asus EEE PC 702 is going to struggle with it. I wouldn't call that struggle. > I don't have anything exactly the same but I do have an 866MHz > Pentium 3 machine with 256M ram here as the closest match and here > are the timings from it. I ran each twice to show that the cache was > warmed up for each. > > # time apt-get upgrade > real 0m1.383s > user 0m1.360s > sys 0m0.020s > > # time apt-get upgrade > real 0m1.389s > user 0m1.344s > sys 0m0.036s > > # time aptitude upgrade > real 0m11.219s > user 0m9.041s > sys 0m0.720s > > # time aptitude upgrade > real 0m12.026s > user 0m9.053s > sys 0m0.684s > [...] > As you can see from this data it will perform a lot better on your > machine. Sure it does. On every machine. That's a long time secret, see e.g. http://bugs.debian.org/270909 and http://bugs.debian.org/519906 -- And hey, guess from who both these bug reports are? I think I recognize a pattern there... Maybe it's just jidanni who thinks that aptitude is slow. ;-) But seriously, there are also some comments and ideas about improving aptitude startup performance in http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=693144#32 > Try apt-get instead of aptitude. That's not the point. apt-get and aptitude have different feature sets. You don't use aptitude just because it has the nicer name. You use aptitude because you want some of the features aptitude has and apt-get hasn't. (If you don't, please consider using apt-get only. :-) Regards, Axel -- ,''`. | Axel Beckert <[email protected]>, http://people.debian.org/~abe/ : :' : | Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin `. `' | 1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486 202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE `- | 4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329 6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5 _______________________________________________ Aptitude-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aptitude-devel
