Bug#584254: dpkg should support a --force-unsafe-io option or such

On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 22:20:31 +0300, Modestas Vainius wrote: > On sekmadienis 10 Spalis 2010 15:21:47 Guillem Jover wrote: > > Anyway, I actually had the changes around last July, and I'll run them > > through the release team to see what they say. I've rebased them now, > > and will polish them a

Bug#584254: dpkg should support a --force-unsafe-io option or such

Hello, On trečiadienis 20 Spalis 2010 23:08:36 Raphael Hertzog wrote: > It does but it's “-o DPkg::options::="--force-unsafe-io"”. Indeed, this syntax works. Thanks. > And /etc/dpkg/dpkg.cfg can be used to enable any command-line parameter > so you should be able to put "force-unsafe-io" in that

Bug#584254: dpkg should support a --force-unsafe-io option or such

Hi, On Wed, 20 Oct 2010, Modestas Vainius wrote: > On trečiadienis 20 Spalis 2010 22:33:34 Julien Cristau wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 22:20:31 +0300, Modestas Vainius wrote: > > > Btw, how will I be able to enable --force-unsafe-io for dpkg when it's > > > run under apt/aptitude? Maybe envi

Bug#584254: dpkg should support a --force-unsafe-io option or such

Hello, On trečiadienis 20 Spalis 2010 22:33:34 Julien Cristau wrote: > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 22:20:31 +0300, Modestas Vainius wrote: > > Btw, how will I be able to enable --force-unsafe-io for dpkg when it's > > run under apt/aptitude? Maybe environment variable and/or > > /etc/dpkg/dpkg.cfg opt

Bug#584254: dpkg should support a --force-unsafe-io option or such

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 22:20:31 +0300, Modestas Vainius wrote: > Btw, how will I be able to enable --force-unsafe-io for dpkg when it's run > under apt/aptitude? Maybe environment variable and/or /etc/dpkg/dpkg.cfg > option is a better solution then? > -o DPkg::options="--force-unsafe-io"? Ch

Bug#584254: dpkg should support a --force-unsafe-io option or such

Hello, On sekmadienis 10 Spalis 2010 15:21:47 Guillem Jover wrote: > Anyway, I actually had the changes around last July, and I'll run them > through the release team to see what they say. I've rebased them now, > and will polish them a bit, but they are essentially these: > >

Bug#584254: dpkg should support a --force-unsafe-io option or such

Guillem Jover writes: >> 3) dpkg is pointlessly slow in such use cases as buildds where *sync() is >> not >> important at all. > > Well, even if the buildd chroot supposedly should be able to be recreated > easily, if the zero-lenght file issues appear on it, then it might not > be obvious some

Bug#584254: dpkg should support a --force-unsafe-io option or such

Hi! On Sun, 2010-10-10 at 12:37:27 +0300, Modestas Vainius wrote: > On sekmadienis 10 Spalis 2010 01:06:41 Otavio Salvador wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Modestas Vainius wrote: > > > It does not make much sense for dpkg to be in this uber-paranoid mode at > > > debian-installer time.

Bug#584254: dpkg should support a --force-unsafe-io option or such

Hello, On sekmadienis 10 Spalis 2010 01:06:41 Otavio Salvador wrote: > On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Modestas Vainius wrote: > ... > > > It does not make much sense for dpkg to be in this uber-paranoid mode at > > debian-installer time. If power fails, install process will probably have > > to

Bug#584254: dpkg should support a --force-unsafe-io option or such

Hello, On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Modestas Vainius wrote: ... > It does not make much sense for dpkg to be in this uber-paranoid mode at > debian-installer time. If power fails, install process will probably have to > be started from scratch anyway. What's more, obviously I have no choice to

Bug#584254: dpkg should support a --force-unsafe-io option or such

Hello, On trečiadienis 02 Birželis 2010 20:14:38 LaMont Jones wrote: > With the introduction of fsync() calls to protect data, applications > that do potentially large apt-get install invocations may not want > to incur the penalty of fsync() calls from dpkg. > > In the case of building a livecd,

Bug#584254: dpkg should support a --force-unsafe-io option or such

Guillem Jover wrote: > Have you tested > 1.15.7.2 (which includes that change), and do the performance issues > persist there. We actually got pretty good results from several testers > on ext4 Right, though still significantly (about 20%) worse in some cases than without any fsync[1]. So I can

Bug#584254: dpkg should support a --force-unsafe-io option or such

On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 11:14:38 -0600, LaMont Jones wrote: > Package: dpkg > Version: 1.15.6 > Severity: normal > > With the introduction of fsync() calls to protect data, applications > that do potentially large apt-get install invocations may not want > to incur the penalty of fsync() calls from

Bug#584254: dpkg should support a --force-unsafe-io option or such

Hi LaMont, LaMont Jones wrote: > With the introduction of fsync() calls to protect data, applications > that do potentially large apt-get install invocations may not want > to incur the penalty of fsync() calls from dpkg. > > In the case of building a livecd, this can be the difference between >

Bug#584254: dpkg should support a --force-unsafe-io option or such

Package: dpkg Version: 1.15.6 Severity: normal With the introduction of fsync() calls to protect data, applications that do potentially large apt-get install invocations may not want to incur the penalty of fsync() calls from dpkg. In the case of building a livecd, this can be the difference betw