Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] opkg: enable zstd support

2022-09-28 Thread Alex Stewart 

Thanks for doing the research.

What was the build time on the zstd L19 compression vs. xz? Was there 
still an improvement?


On 9/28/22 11:50, Etienne Cordonnier wrote:
I tested it a bit more today. I used the standard poky's local.conf 
and added those lines. You can see that at zstd level 9 there is still 
a significant difference in the compression ratio with xz for gcc-dbg 
which is a big file. At zstd level 19, gcc-dbg is 241MB big instead of 
214MB with xz (12.6% more).


PACKAGE_CLASSES = "package_ipk"
ZSTD_DEFAULTS = "-T0 -19"
PACKAGECONFIG:append:pn-opkg-native = " zstd"
OPKGBUILDCMD = "opkg-build -Z zstd -a ${ZSTD_DEFAULTS}"

Zstd at level 9:

build$ ls -lh tmp-zstd-level9/deploy/ipk/core2-64/  --sort=size | head 
-n10

total 1.5G
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier  302M Sep 28 18:33 
gcc-dbg_12.2.0-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier  249M Sep 28 18:33 
openssl-dbg_3.0.5-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier  106M Sep 28 18:33 
openssl-ptest_3.0.5-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier   44M Sep 28 18:33 
binutils-dbg_2.39-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier   26M Sep 28 18:33 
perl-ptest_5.36.0-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier   23M Sep 28 18:33 
gcc_12.2.0-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier   15M Sep 28 18:32 
elfutils-ptest_0.187-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier   15M Sep 28 18:33 
gcc-src_12.2.0-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier   13M Sep 28 18:33 
coreutils-dbg_9.1-r0_core2-64.ipk


zstd at level 19:

build$ ls -lh tmp-zstd-level19/deploy/ipk/core2-64/  --sort=size | 
head -n10

total 1.1G
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier  241M Sep 28 18:04 
gcc-dbg_12.2.0-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier  213M Sep 28 18:03 
openssl-dbg_3.0.5-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier   36M Sep 28 17:58 
binutils-dbg_2.39-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier   30M Sep 28 18:00 
openssl-ptest_3.0.5-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier   22M Sep 28 17:59 
perl-ptest_5.36.0-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier   20M Sep 28 17:58 
gcc_12.2.0-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier   14M Sep 28 17:57 
elfutils-ptest_0.187-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier   12M Sep 28 17:58 
gcc-src_12.2.0-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier   12M Sep 28 17:57 
g++_12.2.0-r0_core2-64.ipk


xz at level 9 (the default):

build$ ls -lh tmp-xz/deploy/ipk/core2-64/  --sort=size | head -n10
total 963M
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier  214M Sep 14 10:44 
gcc-dbg_12.2.0-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier  193M Sep 14 10:44 
openssl-dbg_3.0.5-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier   35M Sep 14 10:44 
openssl-ptest_3.0.5-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier   32M Sep 14 10:44 
binutils-dbg_2.39-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier   20M Sep 14 10:44 
perl-ptest_5.36.0-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier   19M Sep 14 10:44 
gcc_12.2.0-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier   13M Sep 14 10:44 
elfutils-ptest_0.187-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier   12M Sep 14 10:44 
gcc-src_12.2.0-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier   11M Sep 14 10:44 
g++_12.2.0-r0_core2-64.ipk


On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 5:42 PM Khem Raj  wrote:

On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 8:37 AM Alex Stewart 
wrote:
>
> Thanks for checking.
>
> I'd be interested to know if setting a higher compression level
for zstd
> can get us to a similar compression ratio to xz. If so, then I
think it
> could be some real value to distro maintainers to be able to *tune*
> their compression.

yeah it will be interesting to say try something like level 9 but
I think times
might regress with that but it might be good to know the balance
and perhaps
suggest size mode and performance mode of zstd instead of xz



--
Alex Stewart
Software Engineer - NI Real-Time OS
NI (National Instruments)

alex.stew...@ni.com


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#171152): 
https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/171152
Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/93654146/21656
Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub 
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] opkg: enable zstd support

2022-09-28 Thread Etienne Cordonnier via lists.openembedded.org 
I tested it a bit more today. I used the standard poky's local.conf and
added those lines. You can see that at zstd level 9 there is still a
significant difference in the compression ratio with xz for gcc-dbg which
is a big file. At zstd level 19, gcc-dbg is 241MB big instead of 214MB with
xz (12.6% more).

PACKAGE_CLASSES = "package_ipk"
ZSTD_DEFAULTS = "-T0 -19"
PACKAGECONFIG:append:pn-opkg-native = " zstd"
OPKGBUILDCMD = "opkg-build -Z zstd -a ${ZSTD_DEFAULTS}"

Zstd at level 9:

build$ ls -lh tmp-zstd-level9/deploy/ipk/core2-64/  --sort=size | head -n10
total 1.5G
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier  302M Sep 28 18:33
gcc-dbg_12.2.0-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier  249M Sep 28 18:33
openssl-dbg_3.0.5-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier  106M Sep 28 18:33
openssl-ptest_3.0.5-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier   44M Sep 28 18:33
binutils-dbg_2.39-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier   26M Sep 28 18:33
perl-ptest_5.36.0-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier   23M Sep 28 18:33
gcc_12.2.0-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier   15M Sep 28 18:32
elfutils-ptest_0.187-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier   15M Sep 28 18:33
gcc-src_12.2.0-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier   13M Sep 28 18:33
coreutils-dbg_9.1-r0_core2-64.ipk

zstd at level 19:

build$ ls -lh tmp-zstd-level19/deploy/ipk/core2-64/  --sort=size | head -n10
total 1.1G
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier  241M Sep 28 18:04
gcc-dbg_12.2.0-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier  213M Sep 28 18:03
openssl-dbg_3.0.5-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier   36M Sep 28 17:58
binutils-dbg_2.39-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier   30M Sep 28 18:00
openssl-ptest_3.0.5-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier   22M Sep 28 17:59
perl-ptest_5.36.0-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier   20M Sep 28 17:58
gcc_12.2.0-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier   14M Sep 28 17:57
elfutils-ptest_0.187-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier   12M Sep 28 17:58
gcc-src_12.2.0-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier   12M Sep 28 17:57
g++_12.2.0-r0_core2-64.ipk

xz at level 9 (the default):

build$ ls -lh tmp-xz/deploy/ipk/core2-64/  --sort=size | head -n10
total 963M
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier  214M Sep 14 10:44
gcc-dbg_12.2.0-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier  193M Sep 14 10:44
openssl-dbg_3.0.5-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier   35M Sep 14 10:44
openssl-ptest_3.0.5-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier   32M Sep 14 10:44
binutils-dbg_2.39-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier   20M Sep 14 10:44
perl-ptest_5.36.0-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier   19M Sep 14 10:44
gcc_12.2.0-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier   13M Sep 14 10:44
elfutils-ptest_0.187-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier   12M Sep 14 10:44
gcc-src_12.2.0-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier   11M Sep 14 10:44
g++_12.2.0-r0_core2-64.ipk

On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 5:42 PM Khem Raj  wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 8:37 AM Alex Stewart  wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for checking.
> >
> > I'd be interested to know if setting a higher compression level for zstd
> > can get us to a similar compression ratio to xz. If so, then I think it
> > could be some real value to distro maintainers to be able to *tune*
> > their compression.
>
> yeah it will be interesting to say try something like level 9 but I think
> times
> might regress with that but it might be good to know the balance and
> perhaps
> suggest size mode and performance mode of zstd instead of xz
>
> >
> > That's not blocking for your new PR though.
> >
> >
> > On 9/14/22 05:08, Etienne Cordonnier wrote:
> > > Also note that zstd's default compression level is 3 per default (from
> > > a 1 to 19 scale). I did not test other compression levels.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 11:58 AM Etienne Cordonnier
> > >  wrote:
> > >
> > > I ran a build of core-image-full-cmdline using xz and zstd, using
> > > pre-populated downloads and sstate-cache directories but with
> > > empty tmp directory. Here are the numbers:
> > > zstd:
> > > bitbake core-image-full-cmdline took 2m52.768s (real), the
> > > resulting directory tmp/deploy/ipk is 1.6GB big.
> > > xz:
> > > bitbake core-image-full-cmdline took 4m14.214s (real), the
> > > resulting directory tmp/deploy/ipk/ is 996M big
> > >
> > > So the build with xz is 47% slower (254/172) than with zstd for
> > > this "incremental build" use-case.
> > >
> > > See the 5 biggest packages, the difference in compression-ratio
> > > increases with big files:
> > > build$ ls -lh tmp-zstd/deploy/ipk/core2-64/ --sort=size | head -n5
> > > total 1.6G
> > > -rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] opkg: enable zstd support

2022-09-14 Thread Khem Raj 
On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 8:37 AM Alex Stewart  wrote:
>
> Thanks for checking.
>
> I'd be interested to know if setting a higher compression level for zstd
> can get us to a similar compression ratio to xz. If so, then I think it
> could be some real value to distro maintainers to be able to *tune*
> their compression.

yeah it will be interesting to say try something like level 9 but I think times
might regress with that but it might be good to know the balance and perhaps
suggest size mode and performance mode of zstd instead of xz

>
> That's not blocking for your new PR though.
>
>
> On 9/14/22 05:08, Etienne Cordonnier wrote:
> > Also note that zstd's default compression level is 3 per default (from
> > a 1 to 19 scale). I did not test other compression levels.
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 11:58 AM Etienne Cordonnier
> >  wrote:
> >
> > I ran a build of core-image-full-cmdline using xz and zstd, using
> > pre-populated downloads and sstate-cache directories but with
> > empty tmp directory. Here are the numbers:
> > zstd:
> > bitbake core-image-full-cmdline took 2m52.768s (real), the
> > resulting directory tmp/deploy/ipk is 1.6GB big.
> > xz:
> > bitbake core-image-full-cmdline took 4m14.214s (real), the
> > resulting directory tmp/deploy/ipk/ is 996M big
> >
> > So the build with xz is 47% slower (254/172) than with zstd for
> > this "incremental build" use-case.
> >
> > See the 5 biggest packages, the difference in compression-ratio
> > increases with big files:
> > build$ ls -lh tmp-zstd/deploy/ipk/core2-64/ --sort=size | head -n5
> > total 1.6G
> > -rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier  331M Sep 14 10:39
> > gcc-dbg_12.2.0-r0_core2-64.ipk
> > -rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier  264M Sep 14 10:39
> > openssl-dbg_3.0.5-r0_core2-64.ipk
> > -rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier  113M Sep 14 10:39
> > openssl-ptest_3.0.5-r0_core2-64.ipk
> > -rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier   47M Sep 14 10:39
> > binutils-dbg_2.39-r0_core2-64.ipk
> > build$ ls -lh tmp-xz/deploy/ipk/core2-64/ --sort=size | head -n5
> > total 963M
> > -rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier  214M Sep 14 10:44
> > gcc-dbg_12.2.0-r0_core2-64.ipk
> > -rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier  193M Sep 14 10:44
> > openssl-dbg_3.0.5-r0_core2-64.ipk
> > -rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier   35M Sep 14 10:44
> > openssl-ptest_3.0.5-r0_core2-64.ipk
> > -rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier   32M Sep 14 10:44
> > binutils-dbg_2.39-r0_core2-64.ipk
> > ...
> >
> > I think for use-cases where the size of the ipk packages matters,
> > xz is better. For use-cases where it does not matter (ipk packages
> > not deployed), build-time matters more than compression-ratio and
> > zstd is better.
> >
> > Regarding the enablement of zstd in opkg per default, I'll send a
> > new version of the patch without this line.
> > My thinking for enabling zstd per default in opkg was that zstd is
> > already enabled per default in libarchive's PACKAGECONFIG, and
> > disabling zstd in opkg's PACKAGECONFIG removes only a few lines of
> > code from opkg (opkg uses libarchive for doing the actual
> > compression/decompression).
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 11:57 PM Alex Stewart
> >  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 9/13/22 15:20, Alex Feinman wrote:
> > > I do have some numbers. When I was selling this change
> > internally, I
> > > did a comparison on our internal build.
> > >Combined write IPK times (Σ t do_package_write_ipk)
> > > xz 162m 35s
> > > gz 52m 13s
> > > zstd   33m 49s
> > > Compression rate for zstd was closer to xz than to gz but
> > not as good
> > > as xz. For systems that have to cache packages on the device
> > with
> > > limited storage xz might be a better option, but for the
> > bulk of
> > > projects zstd is the best choice
> > > Additionally, zstd offers much faster decompression than xz
> > so the
> > > rootfs build step that includes unpacking all of the ipks,
> > takes 3m
> > > 58s with xz and 2m 44s with zstd.
> > > One other thing of note - if your build includes debug
> > packages, some
> > > may be quite large. E.g. one of our components produces a
> > 2.2 GB debug
> > > package (uncompressed). On large files xz requires a
> > disproportionally
> > > large amount of time resulting in 15 minutes needed to
> > simply write
> > > ipk for the abovementioned packages, whereas zstd took about
> > 45 sec.
> > > For frequent tasks like bitbaking a single package this
> > translates in
> > > a lot of saved time.
> >
> > Those are certainly compelling performance

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] opkg: enable zstd support

2022-09-14 Thread Alex Stewart 

Thanks for checking.

I'd be interested to know if setting a higher compression level for zstd 
can get us to a similar compression ratio to xz. If so, then I think it 
could be some real value to distro maintainers to be able to *tune* 
their compression.


That's not blocking for your new PR though.


On 9/14/22 05:08, Etienne Cordonnier wrote:
Also note that zstd's default compression level is 3 per default (from 
a 1 to 19 scale). I did not test other compression levels.


On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 11:58 AM Etienne Cordonnier 
 wrote:


I ran a build of core-image-full-cmdline using xz and zstd, using
pre-populated downloads and sstate-cache directories but with
empty tmp directory. Here are the numbers:
zstd:
bitbake core-image-full-cmdline took 2m52.768s (real), the
resulting directory tmp/deploy/ipk is 1.6GB big.
xz:
bitbake core-image-full-cmdline took 4m14.214s (real), the
resulting directory tmp/deploy/ipk/ is 996M big

So the build with xz is 47% slower (254/172) than with zstd for
this "incremental build" use-case.

See the 5 biggest packages, the difference in compression-ratio
increases with big files:
build$ ls -lh tmp-zstd/deploy/ipk/core2-64/ --sort=size | head -n5
total 1.6G
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier  331M Sep 14 10:39
gcc-dbg_12.2.0-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier  264M Sep 14 10:39
openssl-dbg_3.0.5-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier  113M Sep 14 10:39
openssl-ptest_3.0.5-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier   47M Sep 14 10:39
binutils-dbg_2.39-r0_core2-64.ipk
build$ ls -lh tmp-xz/deploy/ipk/core2-64/ --sort=size | head -n5
total 963M
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier  214M Sep 14 10:44
gcc-dbg_12.2.0-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier  193M Sep 14 10:44
openssl-dbg_3.0.5-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier   35M Sep 14 10:44
openssl-ptest_3.0.5-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier   32M Sep 14 10:44
binutils-dbg_2.39-r0_core2-64.ipk
...

I think for use-cases where the size of the ipk packages matters,
xz is better. For use-cases where it does not matter (ipk packages
not deployed), build-time matters more than compression-ratio and
zstd is better.

Regarding the enablement of zstd in opkg per default, I'll send a
new version of the patch without this line.
My thinking for enabling zstd per default in opkg was that zstd is
already enabled per default in libarchive's PACKAGECONFIG, and
disabling zstd in opkg's PACKAGECONFIG removes only a few lines of
code from opkg (opkg uses libarchive for doing the actual
compression/decompression).

On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 11:57 PM Alex Stewart
 wrote:



On 9/13/22 15:20, Alex Feinman wrote:
> I do have some numbers. When I was selling this change
internally, I
> did a comparison on our internal build.
>            Combined write IPK times (Σ t do_package_write_ipk)
> xz         162m 35s
> gz         52m 13s
> zstd       33m 49s
> Compression rate for zstd was closer to xz than to gz but
not as good
> as xz. For systems that have to cache packages on the device
with
> limited storage xz might be a better option, but for the
bulk of
> projects zstd is the best choice
> Additionally, zstd offers much faster decompression than xz
so the
> rootfs build step that includes unpacking all of the ipks,
takes 3m
> 58s with xz and 2m 44s with zstd.
> One other thing of note - if your build includes debug
packages, some
> may be quite large. E.g. one of our components produces a
2.2 GB debug
> package (uncompressed). On large files xz requires a
disproportionally
> large amount of time resulting in 15 minutes needed to
simply write
> ipk for the abovementioned packages, whereas zstd took about
45 sec.
> For frequent tasks like bitbaking a single package this
translates in
> a lot of saved time.

Those are certainly compelling performance improvements.
Assuming that
the final data-segment size is within 5%-ish of xz, then I
would agree
with the rest of the thread that it should probably be the
contemporary
default.

And if we make it the default compressor for OE IPKs, then
obviously my
criticism in the original PR is satisfied.

> Bottom line - I think making xz a default package compressor
was not
> entirely thought through. gzip or zstd is what the default
should be.

ZStandard support was only added to opkg last September [1].
Before
that, xz was the new hotness

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] opkg: enable zstd support

2022-09-14 Thread Etienne Cordonnier via lists.openembedded.org 
Also note that zstd's default compression level is 3 per default (from a 1
to 19 scale). I did not test other compression levels.

On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 11:58 AM Etienne Cordonnier <
ecordonn...@snapchat.com> wrote:

> I ran a build of core-image-full-cmdline using xz and zstd, using
> pre-populated downloads and sstate-cache directories but with empty tmp
> directory. Here are the numbers:
> zstd:
> bitbake core-image-full-cmdline took 2m52.768s (real), the resulting
> directory tmp/deploy/ipk is 1.6GB big.
> xz:
> bitbake core-image-full-cmdline took 4m14.214s (real), the resulting
> directory tmp/deploy/ipk/ is 996M big
>
> So the build with xz is 47% slower (254/172) than with zstd for this
> "incremental build" use-case.
>
> See the 5 biggest packages, the difference in compression-ratio increases
> with big files:
> build$ ls -lh tmp-zstd/deploy/ipk/core2-64/ --sort=size | head -n5
> total 1.6G
> -rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier  331M Sep 14 10:39
> gcc-dbg_12.2.0-r0_core2-64.ipk
> -rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier  264M Sep 14 10:39
> openssl-dbg_3.0.5-r0_core2-64.ipk
> -rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier  113M Sep 14 10:39
> openssl-ptest_3.0.5-r0_core2-64.ipk
> -rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier   47M Sep 14 10:39
> binutils-dbg_2.39-r0_core2-64.ipk
> build$ ls -lh tmp-xz/deploy/ipk/core2-64/ --sort=size | head -n5
> total 963M
> -rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier  214M Sep 14 10:44
> gcc-dbg_12.2.0-r0_core2-64.ipk
> -rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier  193M Sep 14 10:44
> openssl-dbg_3.0.5-r0_core2-64.ipk
> -rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier   35M Sep 14 10:44
> openssl-ptest_3.0.5-r0_core2-64.ipk
> -rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier   32M Sep 14 10:44
> binutils-dbg_2.39-r0_core2-64.ipk
> ...
>
> I think for use-cases where the size of the ipk packages matters, xz is
> better. For use-cases where it does not matter (ipk packages not deployed),
> build-time matters more than compression-ratio and zstd is better.
>
> Regarding the enablement of zstd in opkg per default, I'll send a new
> version of the patch without this line.
> My thinking for enabling zstd per default in opkg was that zstd is already
> enabled per default in libarchive's PACKAGECONFIG, and disabling zstd in
> opkg's PACKAGECONFIG removes only a few lines of code from opkg (opkg uses
> libarchive for doing the actual compression/decompression).
>
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 11:57 PM Alex Stewart  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 9/13/22 15:20, Alex Feinman wrote:
>> > I do have some numbers. When I was selling this change internally, I
>> > did a comparison on our internal build.
>> >Combined write IPK times (Σ t do_package_write_ipk)
>> > xz 162m 35s
>> > gz 52m 13s
>> > zstd   33m 49s
>> > Compression rate for zstd was closer to xz than to gz but not as good
>> > as xz. For systems that have to cache packages on the device with
>> > limited storage xz might be a better option, but for the bulk of
>> > projects zstd is the best choice
>> > Additionally, zstd offers much faster decompression than xz so the
>> > rootfs build step that includes unpacking all of the ipks, takes 3m
>> > 58s with xz and 2m 44s with zstd.
>> > One other thing of note - if your build includes debug packages, some
>> > may be quite large. E.g. one of our components produces a 2.2 GB debug
>> > package (uncompressed). On large files xz requires a disproportionally
>> > large amount of time resulting in 15 minutes needed to simply write
>> > ipk for the abovementioned packages, whereas zstd took about 45 sec.
>> > For frequent tasks like bitbaking a single package this translates in
>> > a lot of saved time.
>>
>> Those are certainly compelling performance improvements. Assuming that
>> the final data-segment size is within 5%-ish of xz, then I would agree
>> with the rest of the thread that it should probably be the contemporary
>> default.
>>
>> And if we make it the default compressor for OE IPKs, then obviously my
>> criticism in the original PR is satisfied.
>>
>> > Bottom line - I think making xz a default package compressor was not
>> > entirely thought through. gzip or zstd is what the default should be.
>>
>> ZStandard support was only added to opkg last September [1]. Before
>> that, xz was the new hotness that replaced gzip. :)
>>
>> [1]
>>
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__git.yoctoproject.org_opkg_commit_-3Fid-3D5dead419e94bce2e6b743ad786c1daec0e1aa294=DwIDaQ=ncDTmphkJTvjIDPh0hpF_4vCHvabgGkICC2epckfdiw=AhkbNonVuMIGRfPx_Qj9TsyDLWdbBqarUzFxz3aALck=VG_fgpCGq8Zgu73KQP1wTtb1D1TZftNpXj8jGnouPtGIBYyLIZbG8F-85POUcVN7=Mwoq2kkjfZhto6J5OomduJ5Rhyg_oSe-dkjeltE4Ls8=
>>
>>
>> > One final note: I could not find a reasonable explanation for why
>> > opkg-tools require code changes to support a different compressor. BSD
>> > tar and GNU tar both can easily accept compressors that they have no
>> > idea about (via -I option) because all of them provide a unified
>> > command line interface for use in

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] opkg: enable zstd support

2022-09-14 Thread Etienne Cordonnier via lists.openembedded.org 
I ran a build of core-image-full-cmdline using xz and zstd, using
pre-populated downloads and sstate-cache directories but with empty tmp
directory. Here are the numbers:
zstd:
bitbake core-image-full-cmdline took 2m52.768s (real), the resulting
directory tmp/deploy/ipk is 1.6GB big.
xz:
bitbake core-image-full-cmdline took 4m14.214s (real), the resulting
directory tmp/deploy/ipk/ is 996M big

So the build with xz is 47% slower (254/172) than with zstd for this
"incremental build" use-case.

See the 5 biggest packages, the difference in compression-ratio increases
with big files:
build$ ls -lh tmp-zstd/deploy/ipk/core2-64/ --sort=size | head -n5
total 1.6G
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier  331M Sep 14 10:39
gcc-dbg_12.2.0-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier  264M Sep 14 10:39
openssl-dbg_3.0.5-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier  113M Sep 14 10:39
openssl-ptest_3.0.5-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier   47M Sep 14 10:39
binutils-dbg_2.39-r0_core2-64.ipk
build$ ls -lh tmp-xz/deploy/ipk/core2-64/ --sort=size | head -n5
total 963M
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier  214M Sep 14 10:44
gcc-dbg_12.2.0-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier  193M Sep 14 10:44
openssl-dbg_3.0.5-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier   35M Sep 14 10:44
openssl-ptest_3.0.5-r0_core2-64.ipk
-rw-r--r-- 3 ecordonnier ecordonnier   32M Sep 14 10:44
binutils-dbg_2.39-r0_core2-64.ipk
...

I think for use-cases where the size of the ipk packages matters, xz is
better. For use-cases where it does not matter (ipk packages not deployed),
build-time matters more than compression-ratio and zstd is better.

Regarding the enablement of zstd in opkg per default, I'll send a new
version of the patch without this line.
My thinking for enabling zstd per default in opkg was that zstd is already
enabled per default in libarchive's PACKAGECONFIG, and disabling zstd in
opkg's PACKAGECONFIG removes only a few lines of code from opkg (opkg uses
libarchive for doing the actual compression/decompression).

On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 11:57 PM Alex Stewart  wrote:

>
>
> On 9/13/22 15:20, Alex Feinman wrote:
> > I do have some numbers. When I was selling this change internally, I
> > did a comparison on our internal build.
> >Combined write IPK times (Σ t do_package_write_ipk)
> > xz 162m 35s
> > gz 52m 13s
> > zstd   33m 49s
> > Compression rate for zstd was closer to xz than to gz but not as good
> > as xz. For systems that have to cache packages on the device with
> > limited storage xz might be a better option, but for the bulk of
> > projects zstd is the best choice
> > Additionally, zstd offers much faster decompression than xz so the
> > rootfs build step that includes unpacking all of the ipks, takes 3m
> > 58s with xz and 2m 44s with zstd.
> > One other thing of note - if your build includes debug packages, some
> > may be quite large. E.g. one of our components produces a 2.2 GB debug
> > package (uncompressed). On large files xz requires a disproportionally
> > large amount of time resulting in 15 minutes needed to simply write
> > ipk for the abovementioned packages, whereas zstd took about 45 sec.
> > For frequent tasks like bitbaking a single package this translates in
> > a lot of saved time.
>
> Those are certainly compelling performance improvements. Assuming that
> the final data-segment size is within 5%-ish of xz, then I would agree
> with the rest of the thread that it should probably be the contemporary
> default.
>
> And if we make it the default compressor for OE IPKs, then obviously my
> criticism in the original PR is satisfied.
>
> > Bottom line - I think making xz a default package compressor was not
> > entirely thought through. gzip or zstd is what the default should be.
>
> ZStandard support was only added to opkg last September [1]. Before
> that, xz was the new hotness that replaced gzip. :)
>
> [1]
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__git.yoctoproject.org_opkg_commit_-3Fid-3D5dead419e94bce2e6b743ad786c1daec0e1aa294=DwIDaQ=ncDTmphkJTvjIDPh0hpF_4vCHvabgGkICC2epckfdiw=AhkbNonVuMIGRfPx_Qj9TsyDLWdbBqarUzFxz3aALck=VG_fgpCGq8Zgu73KQP1wTtb1D1TZftNpXj8jGnouPtGIBYyLIZbG8F-85POUcVN7=Mwoq2kkjfZhto6J5OomduJ5Rhyg_oSe-dkjeltE4Ls8=
>
>
> > One final note: I could not find a reasonable explanation for why
> > opkg-tools require code changes to support a different compressor. BSD
> > tar and GNU tar both can easily accept compressors that they have no
> > idea about (via -I option) because all of them provide a unified
> > command line interface for use in pipes. If this were done similar to
> > tar, we could have used any compressor we wanted, including the
> > multithreaded versions (zstdmt)
>
> Well, presumably IPK creation tools can only support the matrix of
> compression algorithms which your opkg binary can decompress. I suppose
> someone could try to implement a plugable compression module system for
>

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] opkg: enable zstd support

2022-09-13 Thread Alex Stewart 



On 9/13/22 15:20, Alex Feinman wrote:
I do have some numbers. When I was selling this change internally, I 
did a comparison on our internal build.

   Combined write IPK times (Σ t do_package_write_ipk)
xz 162m 35s
gz 52m 13s
zstd   33m 49s
Compression rate for zstd was closer to xz than to gz but not as good 
as xz. For systems that have to cache packages on the device with 
limited storage xz might be a better option, but for the bulk of 
projects zstd is the best choice
Additionally, zstd offers much faster decompression than xz so the 
rootfs build step that includes unpacking all of the ipks, takes 3m 
58s with xz and 2m 44s with zstd.
One other thing of note - if your build includes debug packages, some 
may be quite large. E.g. one of our components produces a 2.2 GB debug 
package (uncompressed). On large files xz requires a disproportionally 
large amount of time resulting in 15 minutes needed to simply write 
ipk for the abovementioned packages, whereas zstd took about 45 sec. 
For frequent tasks like bitbaking a single package this translates in 
a lot of saved time.


Those are certainly compelling performance improvements. Assuming that 
the final data-segment size is within 5%-ish of xz, then I would agree 
with the rest of the thread that it should probably be the contemporary 
default.


And if we make it the default compressor for OE IPKs, then obviously my 
criticism in the original PR is satisfied.


Bottom line - I think making xz a default package compressor was not 
entirely thought through. gzip or zstd is what the default should be.


ZStandard support was only added to opkg last September [1]. Before 
that, xz was the new hotness that replaced gzip. :)


[1] 
https://git.yoctoproject.org/opkg/commit/?id=5dead419e94bce2e6b743ad786c1daec0e1aa294


One final note: I could not find a reasonable explanation for why 
opkg-tools require code changes to support a different compressor. BSD 
tar and GNU tar both can easily accept compressors that they have no 
idea about (via -I option) because all of them provide a unified 
command line interface for use in pipes. If this were done similar to 
tar, we could have used any compressor we wanted, including the 
multithreaded versions (zstdmt)


Well, presumably IPK creation tools can only support the matrix of 
compression algorithms which your opkg binary can decompress. I suppose 
someone could try to implement a plugable compression module system for 
opkg. But given that nearly everyone uses opkg in an embedded context, 
I'm not sure it would get much use.




On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 12:43 PM Khem Raj  wrote:

On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 12:19 PM Alex Stewart
 wrote:
>
> ACK from me - apart from enabling zstd by default.
>
> On 9/13/22 07:37, Etienne Cordonnier via lists.openembedded.org


wrote:
> > This allows the use of zstd for opkg packages by using
OPKGBUILDCMD:
> > OPKGBUILDCMD = "opkg-build -Z zstd"
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alex Feinman 
> > Signed-off-by: Etienne Cordonnier 
> > ---
> >   meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_0.6.0.bb


| 3 ++-
> >   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_0.6.0.bb


b/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_0.6.0.bb


> > index 7b351e8123..e38d9d6f3f 100644
> > --- a/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_0.6.0.bb


> > +++ b/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_0.6.0.bb


> > @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ inherit autotools pkgconfig ptest
> >   target_localstatedir := "${localstatedir}"
> >   OPKGLIBDIR ??= "${target_localstatedir}/lib"
> >
> > -PACKAGECONFIG ??= "libsolv"
> > +PACKAGECONFIG ??= "libsolv zstd"
>
> Building in zstd support by default is a little suspect to me.
>
> Unless I'm mistaken, OE-core will only build xz-compressed IPKs by
> default. So zstd support would be unnecessary for a distro
integrator
> who just uses upstream OE-core.
>
> For distros which use zstd compression in their

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] opkg: enable zstd support

2022-09-13 Thread Khem Raj 
Thanks for sharing, really appreciate it. How close were compression
rates in numbers ? I think some users might be sensitive to the
archive sizes, if its something
with in acceptable range, I do agree, zstd would be a better default these days.

On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 1:20 PM Alex Feinman  wrote:
>
> I do have some numbers. When I was selling this change internally, I did a 
> comparison on our internal build.
>
>   Combined write IPK times (Σ t do_package_write_ipk)
>
> xz 162m 35s
>
> gz 52m 13s
>
> zstd   33m 49s
>
> Compression rate for zstd was closer to xz than to gz but not as good as xz. 
> For systems that have to cache packages on the device with limited storage xz 
> might be a better option, but for the bulk of projects zstd is the best choice
>
> Additionally, zstd offers much faster decompression than xz so the rootfs 
> build step that includes unpacking all of the ipks, takes 3m 58s with xz and 
> 2m 44s with zstd.
>
> One other thing of note - if your build includes debug packages, some may be 
> quite large. E.g. one of our components produces a 2.2 GB debug package 
> (uncompressed). On large files xz requires a disproportionally large amount 
> of time resulting in 15 minutes needed to simply write ipk for the 
> abovementioned packages, whereas zstd took about 45 sec. For frequent tasks 
> like bitbaking a single package this translates in a lot of saved time.
>
> Bottom line - I think making xz a default package compressor was not entirely 
> thought through. gzip or zstd is what the default should be.
>
> One final note: I could not find a reasonable explanation for why opkg-tools 
> require code changes to support a different compressor. BSD tar and GNU tar 
> both can easily accept compressors that they have no idea about (via -I 
> option) because all of them provide a unified command line interface for use 
> in pipes. If this were done similar to tar, we could have used any compressor 
> we wanted, including the multithreaded versions (zstdmt)
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 12:43 PM Khem Raj  wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 12:19 PM Alex Stewart  wrote:
>> >
>> > ACK from me - apart from enabling zstd by default.
>> >
>> > On 9/13/22 07:37, Etienne Cordonnier via lists.openembedded.org wrote:
>> > > This allows the use of zstd for opkg packages by using OPKGBUILDCMD:
>> > > OPKGBUILDCMD = "opkg-build -Z zstd"
>> > >
>> > > Signed-off-by: Alex Feinman 
>> > > Signed-off-by: Etienne Cordonnier 
>> > > ---
>> > >   meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_0.6.0.bb | 3 ++-
>> > >   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> > >
>> > > diff --git a/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_0.6.0.bb 
>> > > b/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_0.6.0.bb
>> > > index 7b351e8123..e38d9d6f3f 100644
>> > > --- a/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_0.6.0.bb
>> > > +++ b/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_0.6.0.bb
>> > > @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ inherit autotools pkgconfig ptest
>> > >   target_localstatedir := "${localstatedir}"
>> > >   OPKGLIBDIR ??= "${target_localstatedir}/lib"
>> > >
>> > > -PACKAGECONFIG ??= "libsolv"
>> > > +PACKAGECONFIG ??= "libsolv zstd"
>> >
>> > Building in zstd support by default is a little suspect to me.
>> >
>> > Unless I'm mistaken, OE-core will only build xz-compressed IPKs by
>> > default. So zstd support would be unnecessary for a distro integrator
>> > who just uses upstream OE-core.
>> >
>> > For distros which use zstd compression in their packages, I think it
>> > would be more appropriate to overwrite the opkg PACKAGECONFIG in a
>> > .bbappend.
>> >
>>
>> This is perhaps fine. I do wonder if there is some performance
>> comparison data between xz and zstd compressed ipks
>> with opkg, it might help users on making this choice and also if we
>> should consider using
>> zstd by default at some point or not.
>>
>> > Is there something I'm not considering here?
>> >
>> > >
>> > >   PACKAGECONFIG[gpg] = "--enable-gpg,--disable-gpg,\
>> > >   gnupg gpgme libgpg-error,\
>> > > @@ -39,6 +39,7 @@ PACKAGECONFIG[gpg] = "--enable-gpg,--disable-gpg,\
>> > >   PACKAGECONFIG[curl] = "--enable-curl,--disable-curl,curl"
>> > >   PACKAGECONFIG[ssl-curl] = "--enable-ssl-curl,--disable-ssl-curl,curl 
>> > > openssl"
>> > >   PACKAGECONFIG[sha256] = "--enable-sha256,--disable-sha256"
>> > > +PACKAGECONFIG[zstd] = "--enable-zstd,--disable-zstd,zstd"
>> > >   PACKAGECONFIG[libsolv] = "--with-libsolv,--without-libsolv,libsolv"
>> > >
>> > >   EXTRA_OECONF:class-native = 
>> > > "--localstatedir=/${@os.path.relpath('${localstatedir}', 
>> > > '${STAGING_DIR_NATIVE}')} 
>> > > --sysconfdir=/${@os.path.relpath('${sysconfdir}', 
>> > > '${STAGING_DIR_NATIVE}')}"
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Alex Stewart
>> > Software Engineer - NI Real-Time OS
>> > NI (National Instruments)
>> >
>> > alex.stew...@ni.com
>> >
>> >
>> > 
>> >

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#170611):

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] opkg: enable zstd support

2022-09-13 Thread Alex Feinman via lists.openembedded.org 
On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 1:20 PM Alex Feinman  wrote:

> I do have some numbers. When I was selling this change internally, I did a
> comparison on our internal build.
>
>   Combined write IPK times (Σ t do_package_write_ipk)
>
> xz 162m 35s
>
> gz 52m 13s
>
> zstd   33m 49s
>
> Compression rate for zstd was closer to xz than to gz but not as good as xz. 
> For systems that have to cache packages on the device with limited storage xz 
> might be a better option, but for the bulk of projects zstd is the best choice
>
> Additionally, zstd offers much faster decompression than xz so the rootfs 
> build step that includes unpacking all of the ipks, takes 3m 58s with xz and 
> 2m 44s with zstd.
>
> One other thing of note - if your build includes debug packages, some may be 
> quite large. E.g. one of our components produces a 2.2 GB debug package 
> (uncompressed). On large files xz requires a disproportionally large amount 
> of time resulting in 15 minutes needed to simply write ipk for the 
> abovementioned packages, whereas zstd took about 45 sec. For frequent tasks 
> like bitbaking a single package this translates in a lot of saved time.
>
> Bottom line - I think making xz a default package compressor was not entirely 
> thought through. gzip or zstd is what the default should be.
>
> One final note: I could not find a reasonable explanation for why opkg-tools 
> require code changes to support a different compressor. BSD tar and GNU tar 
> both can easily accept compressors that they have no idea about (via -I 
> option) because all of them provide a unified command line interface for use 
> in pipes. If this were done similar to tar, we could have used any compressor 
> we wanted, including the multithreaded versions (zstdmt)
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 12:43 PM Khem Raj  wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 12:19 PM Alex Stewart 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > ACK from me - apart from enabling zstd by default.
>> >
>> > On 9/13/22 07:37, Etienne Cordonnier via lists.openembedded.org wrote:
>> > > This allows the use of zstd for opkg packages by using OPKGBUILDCMD:
>> > > OPKGBUILDCMD = "opkg-build -Z zstd"
>> > >
>> > > Signed-off-by: Alex Feinman 
>> > > Signed-off-by: Etienne Cordonnier 
>> > > ---
>> > >   meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_0.6.0.bb | 3 ++-
>> > >   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> > >
>> > > diff --git a/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_0.6.0.bb
>> b/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_0.6.0.bb
>> > > index 7b351e8123..e38d9d6f3f 100644
>> > > --- a/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_0.6.0.bb
>> > > +++ b/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_0.6.0.bb
>> > > @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ inherit autotools pkgconfig ptest
>> > >   target_localstatedir := "${localstatedir}"
>> > >   OPKGLIBDIR ??= "${target_localstatedir}/lib"
>> > >
>> > > -PACKAGECONFIG ??= "libsolv"
>> > > +PACKAGECONFIG ??= "libsolv zstd"
>> >
>> > Building in zstd support by default is a little suspect to me.
>> >
>> > Unless I'm mistaken, OE-core will only build xz-compressed IPKs by
>> > default. So zstd support would be unnecessary for a distro integrator
>> > who just uses upstream OE-core.
>> >
>> > For distros which use zstd compression in their packages, I think it
>> > would be more appropriate to overwrite the opkg PACKAGECONFIG in a
>> > .bbappend.
>> >
>>
>> This is perhaps fine. I do wonder if there is some performance
>> comparison data between xz and zstd compressed ipks
>> with opkg, it might help users on making this choice and also if we
>> should consider using
>> zstd by default at some point or not.
>>
>> > Is there something I'm not considering here?
>> >
>> > >
>> > >   PACKAGECONFIG[gpg] = "--enable-gpg,--disable-gpg,\
>> > >   gnupg gpgme libgpg-error,\
>> > > @@ -39,6 +39,7 @@ PACKAGECONFIG[gpg] = "--enable-gpg,--disable-gpg,\
>> > >   PACKAGECONFIG[curl] = "--enable-curl,--disable-curl,curl"
>> > >   PACKAGECONFIG[ssl-curl] =
>> "--enable-ssl-curl,--disable-ssl-curl,curl openssl"
>> > >   PACKAGECONFIG[sha256] = "--enable-sha256,--disable-sha256"
>> > > +PACKAGECONFIG[zstd] = "--enable-zstd,--disable-zstd,zstd"
>> > >   PACKAGECONFIG[libsolv] = "--with-libsolv,--without-libsolv,libsolv"
>> > >
>> > >   EXTRA_OECONF:class-native =
>> "--localstatedir=/${@os.path.relpath('${localstatedir}',
>> '${STAGING_DIR_NATIVE}')} --sysconfdir=/${@os.path.relpath('${sysconfdir}',
>> '${STAGING_DIR_NATIVE}')}"
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Alex Stewart
>> > Software Engineer - NI Real-Time OS
>> > NI (National Instruments)
>> >
>> > alex.stew...@ni.com
>> >
>> >
>> > 
>> >
>>
>

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#170610): 
https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/170610
Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/93654146/21656
Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub 
[arch...@mail-archive.com]

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] opkg: enable zstd support

2022-09-13 Thread Khem Raj 
On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 12:19 PM Alex Stewart  wrote:
>
> ACK from me - apart from enabling zstd by default.
>
> On 9/13/22 07:37, Etienne Cordonnier via lists.openembedded.org wrote:
> > This allows the use of zstd for opkg packages by using OPKGBUILDCMD:
> > OPKGBUILDCMD = "opkg-build -Z zstd"
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alex Feinman 
> > Signed-off-by: Etienne Cordonnier 
> > ---
> >   meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_0.6.0.bb | 3 ++-
> >   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_0.6.0.bb 
> > b/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_0.6.0.bb
> > index 7b351e8123..e38d9d6f3f 100644
> > --- a/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_0.6.0.bb
> > +++ b/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_0.6.0.bb
> > @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ inherit autotools pkgconfig ptest
> >   target_localstatedir := "${localstatedir}"
> >   OPKGLIBDIR ??= "${target_localstatedir}/lib"
> >
> > -PACKAGECONFIG ??= "libsolv"
> > +PACKAGECONFIG ??= "libsolv zstd"
>
> Building in zstd support by default is a little suspect to me.
>
> Unless I'm mistaken, OE-core will only build xz-compressed IPKs by
> default. So zstd support would be unnecessary for a distro integrator
> who just uses upstream OE-core.
>
> For distros which use zstd compression in their packages, I think it
> would be more appropriate to overwrite the opkg PACKAGECONFIG in a
> .bbappend.
>

This is perhaps fine. I do wonder if there is some performance
comparison data between xz and zstd compressed ipks
with opkg, it might help users on making this choice and also if we
should consider using
zstd by default at some point or not.

> Is there something I'm not considering here?
>
> >
> >   PACKAGECONFIG[gpg] = "--enable-gpg,--disable-gpg,\
> >   gnupg gpgme libgpg-error,\
> > @@ -39,6 +39,7 @@ PACKAGECONFIG[gpg] = "--enable-gpg,--disable-gpg,\
> >   PACKAGECONFIG[curl] = "--enable-curl,--disable-curl,curl"
> >   PACKAGECONFIG[ssl-curl] = "--enable-ssl-curl,--disable-ssl-curl,curl 
> > openssl"
> >   PACKAGECONFIG[sha256] = "--enable-sha256,--disable-sha256"
> > +PACKAGECONFIG[zstd] = "--enable-zstd,--disable-zstd,zstd"
> >   PACKAGECONFIG[libsolv] = "--with-libsolv,--without-libsolv,libsolv"
> >
> >   EXTRA_OECONF:class-native = 
> > "--localstatedir=/${@os.path.relpath('${localstatedir}', 
> > '${STAGING_DIR_NATIVE}')} --sysconfdir=/${@os.path.relpath('${sysconfdir}', 
> > '${STAGING_DIR_NATIVE}')}"
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Alex Stewart
> Software Engineer - NI Real-Time OS
> NI (National Instruments)
>
> alex.stew...@ni.com
>
>
> 
>

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#170609): 
https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/170609
Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/93654146/21656
Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub 
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] opkg: enable zstd support

2022-09-13 Thread Alex Stewart 

ACK from me - apart from enabling zstd by default.

On 9/13/22 07:37, Etienne Cordonnier via lists.openembedded.org wrote:

This allows the use of zstd for opkg packages by using OPKGBUILDCMD:
OPKGBUILDCMD = "opkg-build -Z zstd"

Signed-off-by: Alex Feinman 
Signed-off-by: Etienne Cordonnier 
---
  meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_0.6.0.bb | 3 ++-
  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_0.6.0.bb 
b/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_0.6.0.bb
index 7b351e8123..e38d9d6f3f 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_0.6.0.bb
+++ b/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_0.6.0.bb
@@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ inherit autotools pkgconfig ptest
  target_localstatedir := "${localstatedir}"
  OPKGLIBDIR ??= "${target_localstatedir}/lib"
  
-PACKAGECONFIG ??= "libsolv"

+PACKAGECONFIG ??= "libsolv zstd"


Building in zstd support by default is a little suspect to me.

Unless I'm mistaken, OE-core will only build xz-compressed IPKs by 
default. So zstd support would be unnecessary for a distro integrator 
who just uses upstream OE-core.


For distros which use zstd compression in their packages, I think it 
would be more appropriate to overwrite the opkg PACKAGECONFIG in a 
.bbappend.


Is there something I'm not considering here?

  
  PACKAGECONFIG[gpg] = "--enable-gpg,--disable-gpg,\

  gnupg gpgme libgpg-error,\
@@ -39,6 +39,7 @@ PACKAGECONFIG[gpg] = "--enable-gpg,--disable-gpg,\
  PACKAGECONFIG[curl] = "--enable-curl,--disable-curl,curl"
  PACKAGECONFIG[ssl-curl] = "--enable-ssl-curl,--disable-ssl-curl,curl openssl"
  PACKAGECONFIG[sha256] = "--enable-sha256,--disable-sha256"
+PACKAGECONFIG[zstd] = "--enable-zstd,--disable-zstd,zstd"
  PACKAGECONFIG[libsolv] = "--with-libsolv,--without-libsolv,libsolv"
  
  EXTRA_OECONF:class-native = "--localstatedir=/${@os.path.relpath('${localstatedir}', '${STAGING_DIR_NATIVE}')} --sysconfdir=/${@os.path.relpath('${sysconfdir}', '${STAGING_DIR_NATIVE}')}"






--
Alex Stewart
Software Engineer - NI Real-Time OS
NI (National Instruments)

alex.stew...@ni.com


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#170608): 
https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/170608
Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/93654146/21656
Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub 
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-