GNU bug report logs - #66647
Installation of RPMs produced by ‘guix pack’ is super slow

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: help-debbugs <at> gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
Cc: tracker <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#66647: closed (Installation of RPMs produced by
 ‘guix pack’ is super slow)
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2023 14:39:02 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Your message dated Mon, 23 Oct 2023 10:37:23 -0400
with message-id <8734y18kws.fsf <at> gmail.com>
and subject line Re: bug#66647: Installation of RPMs produced by ‘guix pack’ is super slow
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #66647,
regarding Installation of RPMs produced by ‘guix pack’ is super slow
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs <at> gnu.org.)


-- 
66647: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=66647
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems

[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludovic.courtes <at> inria.fr>
To: bug-guix <at> gnu.org
Subject: Installation of RPMs produced by ‘guix pack’
 is super slow
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2023 12:20:44 +0200

Hello!

I made friends at work when I told them we could provide an RPM for any
modern package to install on their old RPM-based distro.  :-)

However, installing those RPMs takes a lot of time.  For example,
installing the RPM for ‘gmsh’ (closure: 596 MiB; thousands of files)
takes ~45mn.

Is there something about the metadata generated by (guix rpm) that could
be improved, or are we hitting some limitation of the RPM format or
implementation?

Thanks,
Ludo’.

[Message part 3 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
To: Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
Cc: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>,
 GNU Debbugs <control <at> debbugs.gnu.org>, 66647-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#66647: Installation of RPMs produced by ‘guix pack’ is super slow
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2023 10:37:23 -0400

tags 66647 + moreinfo unreproducible
thanks

Hi,

Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com> writes:

> Hi,
>
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 at 21:35, Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
>
> [...]
>
>> [user <at> fedora Downloads]$ sudo time rpm -i 7m01b0308z5y2pmyn8ywzdj914dxawsl-gmsh-rpm-pack.rpm
>> 17.26user 10.19system 0:42.31elapsed 64%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 24468maxresident)k
>> 1481136inputs+2177344outputs (19major+6242minor)pagefaults 0swaps
>>
>> [user <at> fedora Downloads]$ rpm --version
>> RPM version 4.18.0
>> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
>
> These days I am doing some experiments with CentOS7 (rpm 4.11.8), so I
> have a virtualbox VM around.  Attached the view I get using the pack
> generated with,
>
>     guix pack -f rpm -S /opt/bin=bin -R gmsh
>
> then copied with ’scp’.  Well, I do not have GUI but gmsh seems working.
>
> For me, ’rpm -i’ needs less than 10 seconds.  It installs 88 items if I
> read correctly.

Yeah, a ~600 MiB closure is by no means specially large, should it
shouldn't take 45 minutes unless the IO in the VM is pathologically
slow, or if the old RPM version was struggling with something in our
custom-generated RPMs.  You example shows this is not the case, so I'll
close this with 'moreinfo' and 'unreproducible' tags.

Ludo: feel free to reopen if you can gather more details that would
point at our RPMs being faulty.

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.