NevilleGoddard wrote:It just took me a little over 2 hours to do 220 packages on my machine.
That's not bad.
- desktop packages on average are larger than whole ports/pkgs average.
- a single package may take hours, just think at libreoffice, chromium, webkit-xxx ...
- and of course a desktop machine usually is not a like a Xeon server
I started using synth on my desktop, when
I though I was ready, started to build "everything" for GhostBSD, on a dedcated server.
Since then I discovered
I was not ready, in fact building everything is a different story, you are going to have 26500 pkgs in one directory and this is going to affect overall performance. Similarly, when ccache grows up to 70~100 GB, with millions of files, the underlying filesystem play a big role in killing the performance.
Testing and measuring performance is difficult, because conditions changes nearly every times ... I was fooled many times by partial results ...
The end of the story is:
- UFS doesn't scale (related to ccache)
- FreeBSD kernel has a bottleneck while performing multiple 'umount' (we have to live with that).
I take as a reference the dragonflybsd results:
Dual Xeon E5-2620 (for a total of 16 cores / 32 threads), 128 GB RAM, NVME disks:
1200 pkgs/hour.
A FreeeBSD dev told me he build on a 40 cores system (40 threads really, 2 Ghz CPU), using poudriere and can build at 2800 pkgs/hour. He wanted me to switch to poudriere .... (in my mind I gave him the middle finger).