Mike Gerdts wrote:
> $ uname -srvi
> SunOS 5.11 snv_111b SUNW,SPARC-Enterprise-T5120
> 
> $ ptime pkg search -l ls
> [snip]
> real       34.130866085
> user       30.690454076
> sys         0.774897050

SPARC performance may be suffering mainly due to this bug:

10130 fmri object creation and string conversion performance issues on 
SPARC

> the new software takes 12x longer for equivalent tasks.  There is a
> very high startup cost with pkg that does not exist with pkgadd.  With
> pkgadd I don't think too far ahead to be sure to group as many
> operations into one invocation as possible.  When I use pkg, I most
> certainly try to lump as many operations as possible into each
> invocation to avoid this startup penalty.

Currently, startup performance primarily suffers from the following 
(from what I've discovered so far):

* package data loaded on startup is not limited to what is needed (I'm 
working on this currently)

* FMRI overhead issues (SPARC only as far as I know -- see above)

> When I look at the publicly disclosed/speculated road map for CMT
> systems, I don't see things improving for the simple operations
> without fixing the software.  I eagerly await the SAT solver and any
> other improvements that are in the works.

The main improvements coming are to:

* startup times

* info and uninstall performance

* install / image-update (via SAT solver and catalog work)

* file transfer (most of which is in place, but more is coming)

> Right now I'm not complaining - I know the software is young and the
> primary development platform is x86 where the regression isn't so
> apparent.  Once I start hearing that there aren't big performance
> improvements coming, I will start opening support calls if the
> performance is still worse than before.

The pkg(5) project is currently focused primarily on achieving 
correctness and desired functionality, it just so happens that a lot of 
that ongoing work also gives us better performance.

Significant performance work has also been done already, and more is 
planned.

Cheers,
--
Shawn Walker

Reply via email to