dorsal team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 12:52:42PM +0200, Joachim Berdal Haga wrote:
> Perhaps include .bzr in the tarball?

I think the advantage will disappear then it would increase the size
of the tarball by a factor 10.

> On 22 October 2012 12:49, Harish Narayanan <harish.mlists@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I see, and agree
> >
> > Then, apart from timing, I am only hesitant for one more reason: I
> > occasionally maintain local changes to the different source trees for
> > sillyness that is specific to my machine. Using bzr allows me to not
> > blow them away on upgrade, but refetching tarballs will do so.

Perhaps we could add another keyword in addition to "skip" which would
only skip the download, not the build?

--
Anders


> > On 10/22/12 9:47 AM, Anders Logg wrote:
> >> It's just the general feeling I get when experimenting with a new
> >> setup for my system (and therefore running Dorsal repeatedly for
> >> testing). External packages are built fast, but simple stuff like FFC
> >> takes a really long time just becase the bzr download is so slow.
> >>
> >> Here are some numbers for DOLFIN:
> >>
> >> $ time wget http://fenicsproject.org/pub/software/dolfin/dolfin-snapshot.tar.gz
> >> real    0m23.555s
> >>
> >> $ time bzr branch lp:dolfin
> >> real    5m7.337s
> >>
> >> $ cd dolfin; time bzr pull
> >> real    0m7.107s
> >>
> >> So when doing a fresh install, the difference is 23s for tarball vs
> >> 5min for bzr.
> >>
> >> And for updated install, the difference is 23s for tarball vs 7s for
> >> bzr, in the best case (longer for bzr if something actually changed).
> >>
> >> The extra 16s for tarball update is not very noticeable, but the extra
> >> 5 min for fresh install with bzr is very noticeable.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 09:21:57AM +0200, Harish Narayanan wrote:
> >>> Hmm. I am not sure. I guess that depends on how often one updates their
> >>> sources for unstable builds on dorsal.
> >>>
> >>> Harish
> >>>
> >>> On 10/22/12 9:20 AM, Anders Logg wrote:
> >>>> Yes, but my assertion is that cost is smaller than needing to branch
> >>>> the entire source tree.
> >>>>
> >>>>> I mean the user pulling it via dorsal from fpo. They then have to get
> >>>>> the entire tarball each time, right? (As opposed to tiny deltas via bzr).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Harish
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 10/22/12 9:14 AM, Anders Logg wrote:
> >>>>>> How do you mean? The snapshot would be updated every 5 min by a
> >>>>>> cronjob on fenicsproject.org.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> And how would one update the snapshot, which I am assuming is a tarball
> >>>>>>> created by bzr archive (or whatever the export command is)?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Harish
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 10/22/12 9:09 AM, Anders Logg wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Would it be a good idea to store snapshots of the FEniCS packages on
> >>>>>>>> the server for faster installation with Dorsal? The bzr cloning takes
> >>>>>>>> forever. We could have a cronjob running on the server for pulling and
> >>>>>>>> updating the snapshots every say 5 min. We are already pulling for the
> >>>>>>>> buildbots.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dorsal
> > Post to     : dorsal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dorsal
> > More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp