On 12/26/2011 07:34 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
>>>> Why not just mount direct via NFS? It'd be a lot
quicker, not to
>>>> mention easier to tune. It'd work for building all but a handful
>>>> of packages (e.g. zsh), but you could handle that by having a
>>>> single builder that uses a normal fs that has a policy pointing
>>>> the packages that fail self-tests on NFS at it.
>>> I'm not acquainted with the rationale for the decision so perhaps
>>> somebody else can comment. Beyond the packages that demand a local
>>> filesystem, perhaps there were issues with .nfsXXX files, or some
>>> stability problem not seen when working with a single open file?
>>> Not sure.
>> glibc uses functionality not supported on nfsv3.
> That may be so, but it does not appear to be in any way an issue for
> having mock chroot on NFS. It also causes no problems with running on
> NFS root. Can you provide a single relevant example of why this is
> relevant for /var/lib/mock?
* Mon Feb 14 2011 Andreas Schwab<schwab(a)redhat.com> - 2.13.90-4
- Update from master
- Update sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/sparc/bits/socket.h
- Synchronize generic bits/sched.h cpu_set_t with Linux implementation
- Schedule nscd cache pruning more accurately from re-added values
- Fix passing symbol value to pltexit callbacks when ld.so auditing
- Fix range error handling in sgetspent
- Revert "Fix ordering of DSO constructors and destructors" (#673014)
- Create debuginfo-common on biarch archs
- Reinstall assembler workaround.
- Replace setuid by file capabilities (#646469)
thats the change that makes it not work, nfsv3 doesnt support file
capablities. initing a chroot fails. which means you can not use mock
Interesting. Judging by the version and date, this isn't the case in
either RHEL6 nor F13 - which would explain why I haven't seen it.
Thanks for pointing this out. :)
>> nfsv4 may be a viable
>> option. mock doesnt work right on nfs.
> Can you provide an example? I certainly found no problem with it. The
> only issue I had turned out to be caused by the file system that was
> being exported via NFS having a bug that made the sticky directories
> not work properly. Ever since I fixed that it's been working
rhel6 is too old to hit the issue.
If it breaks functionality that used to work, isn't that technically a
regression bug? ;)
>> i think looking at iscsi or aoe
>> or nbd would help to take out some of the layering thats in play
>> currently. I really think we need to get more spindles in play. all
>> the other arches use raid0 over local scsi/sas drives that are 10k
>> or 15k rpm. and the storage is local. the only local option we
>> have is to use USB storage. maybe a 16GB usb stick on each may
>> help. they can be gotten for ~USD$16 each we are still going to be
>> limited to the usb bus.
> Been there, tried it. Most USB sticks have similar random-write IOPS
> performancs to SD cards (i.e. somewhere between dire and useless).
> The ones that I have found that fare bearably well (i.e. come close
> to a ~ 5000 rpm disk) are _some_ of the ones based on a Kingston
> controller, but with the generic no-name sticks you will have to test
> a large selection of models to find a model that is any good.
I never said it was perfect. just that it may be better that the io
bound bottle neck we have right now.
Assuming 20 IOPS for an average SD card or USB stick and 120 IOPS from 1
40x builders * 20 IOPS = 800 IOPS
4x disks * 120 IOPS = 480 IOPS
Indeed, it sounds like you might plausibly end up ahead. But 40x good
16GB Class 10 SD cards isn't likely to be the most cost effective option.