gah, resending with the link this time. http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1304257-FO-MERGE786390
On 10/30/13 11:21 AM, "Lyons, Roy" <[email protected]> wrote: >I am trying to get my unix admins to use it for us. here are some >benchmarks I have seen. > > >On 10/30/13 10:51 AM, "Curtis Rueden" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>Hi Roy, >> >>> zfs has built in de-duplication. >> >>ZFS sounds awesome in theory but have you actually tried it? If so, how >>is >>it working for you? In particular, how is the performance? >> >>-Curtis >> >> >>On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Lyons, Roy <[email protected]> >>wrote: >> >>> :) but like I said, you wouldnt worry about the space if it was all on >>> zfs. zfs has built in de-duplication. you could have 2000 local maven >>> repos and probably not fill your disk since most of it has to do with >>> duplicate jars and such. >>> >>> On 10/30/13 10:37 AM, "Curtis Rueden" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >Hi all, >>> > >>> >There is plenty of room for improvement regarding reuse of Maven's >>>local >>> >repository cache. Releases in particular are supposed to be immutable >>>so >>> >once they are downloaded they could go into a read-only tier as >>>suggested >>> >by Stephen. Inventing such a scheme to reuse large portions of the >>>repo >>> >cache would be of great benefit to the Maven community. >>> > >>> >E.g.: the recommended CIS strategy is for every job to use its own >>>local >>> >repo cache, which becomes very large. My Jenkins has dozens of Maven >>>build >>> >jobs and I cannot afford the bloat; my Jenkins backups are huge enough >>> >already. So what I do instead is limit my Maven Jenkins node to a >>>single >>> >executor, which is a real waste on a 16 core machine. Much better >>>would be >>> >if the jobs could share the bulk of the repo cache. >>> > >>> >So it's definitely an itch, but not quite itchy enough for anyone to >>> >scratch yet... >>> > >>> >Regards, >>> >Curtis >>> > On Oct 30, 2013 8:35 AM, "Mark H. Wood" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> >> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 10:18:49AM +0100, Matthieu Moy wrote: >>> >> > Barrie Treloar <[email protected]> writes: >>> >> > >>> >> > > On 29 October 2013 23:56, Lyons, Roy <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >> > >> Unfortunately, you will always have something in >>> >>$HOME/.m2/repository >>> >> > >> because that's how maven works. >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> Can I suggest perhaps that you use zfs for deduplication in >>>/home? >>> >> > >> Otherwise, you can add something like >>> >> > > >>> >> > > Or give them more disk space - isn't this stuff meant to be >>>cheap >>> >> now-a-days? >>> >> > >>> >> > Local disk space is cheap. NFS-shared, RAID & backed-up disk >>>space, >>> >>less >>> >> > so. I can live with a few Gb of waste, but I was just wondering >>> >>whether >>> >> > we could do any better. >>> >> >>> >> Disks are cheap. But not free. Running the procurement gantlet is >>> >> not free. Downtime to install new storage is not free. Lord knows >>> >> that additional backup tapes are not free, not even cheap. Longer >>> >> backup windows are not free. Throwing storage at the problem is >>>often >>> >> a reasonable choice, but it's also reasonable to always ask if there >>> >> isn't a better way. >>> >> >>> >> Sorry, I've been aching to write that for a long time.... >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> Mark H. Wood, Lead System Programmer [email protected] >>> >> Machines should not be friendly. Machines should be obedient. >>> >> >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>> >>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
