feature request: record build space used

[Ion-Mihai Tetcu]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:18:16 -0400
Wesley Shields <wxs at FreeBSD.org> wrote:

 On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 12:11:48PM -0400, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-07-23 at 13:59 +0300, Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
> > > Yeh, an other one ;)
> > > 
> > > 
> > > It would be very useful to me to have, for each port, stored in
> > > the database the total size of the space it occupies, together
> > > with base OS and dependencies, at build time. This value should
> > > be updated, if bigger that current values, even if the build
> > > fails.
> > 
> > How would one know the size before the port builds?  Dependencies
> > are one thing, but we have no concept of size (even distfile size)
> > before buildscript is called.
> 
> You can get a rough idea of it based upon the previous build?  Take
> the previous build and add on N% of space for growth?

Exactly. While it might fail for a few ports that suddenly grow, it will
work for 99%.

From my educated guess:
- for at least 50% of the ports tindy is spending more time untaring
the jail that doing anything else. 
- for 95% of the ports 2GB of RAM-based build space is more that
enough;

What I'd like is to be able to have everything in RAM for those 95%
without maintaining an exceptions list by hand. For the current
hardware QA Tindy is running on I should get at least 35% "speed"
improvement for a full run. (The jail tarball is cached by the fs in
memory for me).


-- 
IOnut - Un^d^dregistered ;) FreeBSD "user"
  "Intellectual Property" is   nowhere near as valuable   as "Intellect"
FreeBSD committer -> itetcu at FreeBSD.org, PGP Key ID 057E9F8B493A297B
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://marcuscom.com/pipermail/tinderbox-list/attachments/20080723/5032d190/attachment.bin>