From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C0F01388C0 for ; Sat, 27 Feb 2016 23:09:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 473CE21C03B; Sat, 27 Feb 2016 23:09:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 633B721C016 for ; Sat, 27 Feb 2016 23:09:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [IPv6:2a02:8109:a640:180c:5ee0:c5ff:fe8e:77db] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:8109:a640:180c:5ee0:c5ff:fe8e:77db]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: patrick) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 22EAE340B35 for ; Sat, 27 Feb 2016 23:09:11 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bug #565566: Why is it still not fixed? To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <56CC937C.3030805@gentoo.org> <56CCD4DC.3040509@gentoo.org> <2fd3bbae-0fa0-d65e-dae4-874db95c1688@gentoo.org> From: Patrick Lauer Message-ID: <56D22C5D.8020403@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 00:08:13 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 0b3c8792-5729-4793-ba2f-60986db7902f X-Archives-Hash: a0e815dcb3aae43826e764966e38231b On 02/27/2016 11:50 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 02:14:12PM +0100, Luca Barbato wrote: >> On 24/02/16 01:33, Duncan wrote: >>> That option is there, and indeed, a patch providing it was specifically >>> added to portage for infra to use, because appending entries to existing >>> files is vastly easier and more performant than trying to prepend entries >>> and having to rewrite the entire file as a result. >> This sounds wrong in many different ways. The changelog files are tiny >> and makes next to no difference truncate+write or append. > Prior to seperating ChangeLog files into years, this was way worse: > a kernel bump present in any of gentoo-sources, hardened-sources, > vanilla-sources meant another 100k of data to sent. It's not a lot > overall, but here's some quick stats from one of our rsync servers, on > bytes sent. [snip] > > So, now the question: > If we use appending changelogs, the large changelogs only differ by a > few hundred bytes. If we instead have to rewrite them, it's 50k+ per > changelog. from /usr/share/portage/config/make.globals: PORTAGE_RSYNC_OPTS="--recursive --links --safe-links --perms --times --omit-dir-times --compress --force --whole-file --delete --stats --human-readable --timeout=180 --exclude=/distfiles --exclude=/local --exclude=/packages --exclude=/.git" Notice the --whole-file part there. > > For each 50k changelog, the median transfer would get 0.25% larger. > Well, we could just have less changes ;) 160GB/day per server is about 2MB/s, ~16Mbit, or about 5TB/month. That's still included in the 'free' bandwidth that el cheapo hosters like Hetzner provide with their smallest servers ...