On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 09:10:16PM +0100, Peter Tribble wrote: > On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:55 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:13:05PM +0100, Peter Tribble wrote: > >> I'm using the hardware available to me. Generally that means > >> more modern hardware for OpenSolaris. It's not an absolute > >> number, but a straight comparison on identical VirtualBox installs > >> on my home Ultra 20 gives: > > > > More specification, please. > > Which is completely irrelevant. I'm not comparing it to something > else (although if you want me to do that, I'll note that my Ultra 60 > running SXCE was faster at packaging that the modern core 2 laptop > running OpenSolaris that I used recently). The point is that with identical > configurations on the same hardware, pkg(5) is much slower than SVR4.
I disagree. I have to compare these numbers to other things, and if I were to try to replicate your experiments in a lab, I'll need to know what hardware and software is being used, if I'm to get the same results that you are. Your disk, NIC, amount of memory, OS version, and a bunch of other variables all matter here. > > It's possible to make benchmarks look arbitrarily poor by > > manipulating operating system tunables and fiddling with the > > hardware config. > > Come now. I've installed the system and left it untuned. I'm not suggesting you intentionally configured the system to perform poorly; however, various tunables may have unintented consequences. I'm particularly interested if you performed any ZFS tuning. But you're saying that's not the case? > > Pkg(5) is still under development. It's rather unreasonable to > > suggest that the unoptimized performance today, in development > > builds no less, will reflect the final performance of the product at > > release. We have more features to add and more optimization to > > perform. > > Pkg(5) has had considerable development effort expended on it. It's been > released in shipping product for over a year. SVR4 has been neglected and > left to rot. What is your point, excatly? Pkg(5) has completely different design goals than SVR4, consequently requiring more development effort. This product isn't finished. You'll notice that people are still actively working on delivering features. > > If you'd like to help analyze and fix, we're happy for your > > contributions. I'm willing to consider reasonably crafted patches for > > well identified performance problems. However, time I spend answering > > e-mail is time that I'm not spending writing code. > > Are you willing to accept that pkg(5) does have serious problems > with performance, and needs improvements of an order of magnitude > or more? Why would I accept such a claim? You haven't provided me any real data that you have a performance problem. You're comparing two completely different packaging systems, and claiming, erroneously I might add, that the two are equivalent. -j _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
