What happened with Pacman?

algorythm · 2010-01-14 19:19:53

[SOLVED]Pacman very slow to sync local and repository

What happened? When did pacman get this friggin' fast with updating. I don't even need to do the "pacman cage" script anymore.

- Thanks, and hopefully I won't be punished for asking this .

Last edited by algorythm (2010-01-14 19:20:47)

drcouzelis · 2010-01-14 19:29:11

Did speed improve in pacman? Pacman hasn't been updated since 2009-11-14.

I'm confused, why did you post those two links?

I considered uninstalling pacman-cage so I would have fewer packages installed, but I decided not to because it is just so stinkin fast.

Last edited by drcouzelis (2010-01-14 19:53:45)

algorythm · 2010-01-14 20:30:57

I guess I was pretty confusing. I mean you don't need to use the pacman cage (as far as my testing with just installed arch 64-bit proved) because updating is so fast anyway.

Anonymo · 2010-01-14 20:42:25

algorythm wrote:

I guess I was pretty confusing. I mean you don't need to use the pacman cage (as far as my testing with just installed arch 64-bit proved) because updating is so fast anyway.

It's always fast when you first install Arch, but degrades over time, then you have to do a whole re-install

drcouzelis · 2010-01-14 20:45:30

Anonymo wrote:

It's always fast when you first install Arch, but degrades over time, then you have to do a whole re-install

SHHH! Don't say the "R" word! These are the Arch Linux forums!

sand_man · 2010-01-14 21:47:11

It will only slow down because of the cache and the type of filesystem used. They make all the difference.
I've never experienced slow pacman, I rarely clear the cache and I've never used pacman-cage.

Last edited by sand_man (2010-01-14 21:47:42)

algorythm · 2010-01-15 12:25:14

K, then. That's what I figured out but I red on the "Pacman very slow" topic that pacman is slow because it has to check so many individual text files in /var/*. I mean PKGBUILDs (and the other install configs).

Last edited by algorythm (2010-01-15 12:27:52)

EVRAMP · 2010-01-15 12:26:51

There's also pacman-optimize command to speed up when cache gets fragmented.

algorythm · 2010-01-15 12:27:19

EVRAMP wrote:

There's also pacman-optimize command to speed up when cache gets fragmented.

Yes I know but that wasn't what I was asking.

sand_man · 2010-01-15 22:50:10

algorythm wrote:

K, then. That's what I figured out but I red on the "Pacman very slow" topic that pacman is slow because it has to check so many individual text files in /var/*. I mean PKGBUILDs (and the other install configs).

Yes that's right but the slowness comes from the type of fs or the fs config. I've always had /var as reiserfs

drcouzelis · 2010-01-16 01:11:23

sand_man wrote:

It will only slow down because of the cache and the type of filesystem used. They make all the difference.
I've never experienced slow pacman, I rarely clear the cache and I've never used pacman-cage.

sand_man wrote:

Yes that's right but the slowness comes from the type of fs or the fs config. I've always had /var as reiserfs

I see. You've setup a fast filesystem yourself for pacman to use, whereas I had pacman-cage setup a little filesystem for pacman to use. I had no idea the filesystem type made that much of a difference. It sure does make a difference!

Putting /var on a filesystem that is good at handling lots of small files really quickly sounds like a great idea. Aside from reiserfs, do you have any suggestions?

sHyLoCk · 2010-01-16 02:37:53

sand_man wrote:

algorythm wrote:
K, then. That's what I figured out but I red on the "Pacman very slow" topic that pacman is slow because it has to check so many individual text files in /var/*. I mean PKGBUILDs (and the other install configs).
Yes that's right but the slowness comes from the type of fs or the fs config. I've always had /var as reiserfs

Yup same here! Reiser is good for handling small files.

ataraxia · 2010-01-16 02:49:15

For a while after ext4 went stable, the first sync after bootup - when the disk cache wasn't populated yet - would be very slow. It became fast again when I upgraded to 2.6.31.

algorythm · 2010-01-16 11:35:27

Yes, I know that ReiserFS/Reiser4 are designed to be very good with small files and also the suggestion by someone on the same topic was to have 'pacman-sqlite' (so that the /var/* directory would just be a sqlite database) as sqlite dbs are faster. The solutions now are the pacman cage or /var with fs that's fast with small files.

Anyways I thought Reiser 4 was stable already? It's even gonna (at least if 'everything goes well') enter mainline around 2.6.36.

Arch Linux

#1 2010-01-14 19:19:53

What happened with Pacman?

#2 2010-01-14 19:29:11

Re: What happened with Pacman?

#3 2010-01-14 20:30:57

Re: What happened with Pacman?

#4 2010-01-14 20:42:25

Re: What happened with Pacman?

#5 2010-01-14 20:45:30

Re: What happened with Pacman?

#6 2010-01-14 21:47:11

Re: What happened with Pacman?

#7 2010-01-15 12:25:14

Re: What happened with Pacman?

#8 2010-01-15 12:26:51

Re: What happened with Pacman?

#9 2010-01-15 12:27:19

Re: What happened with Pacman?

#10 2010-01-15 22:50:10

Re: What happened with Pacman?

#11 2010-01-16 01:11:23

Re: What happened with Pacman?

#12 2010-01-16 02:37:53

Re: What happened with Pacman?

#13 2010-01-16 02:49:15

Re: What happened with Pacman?

#14 2010-01-16 11:35:27

Re: What happened with Pacman?

Board footer