Pacman 3.0 is terrific

Misfit138 · 2007-05-21 01:51:45

Bravo, bravo, BRAVO!

Pacman 3.0 is absolutely, positively blazingly FAST!
Thank you developers for making one of the best package managers into THE best package manager!

dolby · 2007-05-21 03:42:20

may i ask what filesystem you re using for /var ?

edit: im asking cause i had been using reiser for 8 months and recently converted to ext3 and it seems too slow now

Last edited by dolby (2007-05-21 03:43:25)

gentoofu · 2007-05-21 04:38:32

I feel pacman 3.0 is slower for me.

ozar · 2007-05-21 04:43:10

I've been reading about all the new found speed but I've not noticed any.

That said, pacman has always been fast for me, but I'm glad it's working faster for those that found it slow before.

phrakture · 2007-05-21 06:14:50

dolby wrote:

may i ask what filesystem you re using for /var ?
edit: im asking cause i had been using reiser for 8 months and recently converted to ext3 and it seems too slow now

Try turning directory indexing on. Also, shutting off atime (if var is a different partition) makes a difference too.

onearm · 2007-05-21 08:55:55

I noticed pacman 3 a little faster than before. Mostly is a difference in filesystem I believe, with xfs it was a lot slower, now with ext3 (plus directory indexing) is, for example, much faster than apt-get on a similar partition.

Cynical · 2007-05-23 01:23:30

I haven't noticed a difference, but pacman has always been fast for me.

Misfit138 · 2007-05-23 12:51:15

I am using reiser with notail, noatime.
Synchronizing especially is super fast for me now. I am using the same repos as before, even after the ranking script, but I no longer have any lag from syncing; it's like -BAM-

Last edited by Misfit138 (2007-05-23 12:52:32)

deficite · 2007-05-23 16:29:23

I noticed a huge speed improvement when I went to pacman3. I'm running ext3 with dir_index turned on.

SiD · 2007-05-23 16:34:22

Cynical wrote:

I haven't noticed a difference, but pacman has always been fast for me.

same here

dr_te_z · 2007-05-23 20:03:50

Yeah, it feels fast(er). No complaints. I use JFS.

attila · 2007-05-24 07:49:10

I use JFS as filesystem too and yes, i would say the same that it feels fast(er).

The only thing what looks slower as before is a "pacman -Qo /path/foo". Could this be or should i go to the optometrist?

Romashka · 2007-05-24 09:08:30

deficite wrote:

I noticed a huge speed improvement when I went to pacman3. I'm running ext3 with dir_index turned on.

Same here, pacman3 is indeed much faster with ext3+dir_index, than pacman2 on same fs.
(I didn't turn off atime because /var is on the same partition as /)

shining · 2007-05-24 18:03:47

attila wrote:

I use JFS as filesystem too and yes, i would say the same that it feels fast(er).
The only thing what looks slower as before is a "pacman -Qo /path/foo". Could this be or should i go to the optometrist?

Afaik it's slower because of this : http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacm … 07374.html

attila · 2007-05-24 19:42:40

Afaik it's slower because of this : http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacm … 07374.html

Thanks for the nice information and that there is hope that it will get fixed.

pelle.k · 2007-05-24 21:26:37

I've noticed a _huge_ speed increase with pacman 3. I run a fairly vanilla install with ext3 defaults.
Pacman v2 could take up to 30-40 seconds the first time i used it in a session, to 5-15 seconds after that.

Now, i have like 5-10 seconds response time the first time around, and _instant_ reaction after that. My verdict?
I like!

kano · 2007-05-25 01:21:39

pacman3 seemed alot faster for me aswell, using XFS w/ noatime,nodiratime,logbufs=8

attila · 2007-05-25 08:13:25

kano wrote:

pacman3 seemed alot faster for me aswell, using XFS w/ noatime,nodiratime,logbufs=8

noatime,nodiratime is from my view even a good idea for every linux filesystem and i use it with jfs too.

The disadvantage of xfs is that it caches very much in the memory and in the worst case (yes, instead of i loves linux, i never would say that it don't crashes) the result been empty files. In my case this happens with ~/.kde and all time what i perhaps have won with a faster filesysten i got loose with config my whole kde a second time. Sure, this was my error because at this time i don't backup ~/.kde.-)

fivre · 2007-05-29 02:52:41

I don't know if it's specific to Pacman 3 or not, but last night I left an upgrade on...

...Only to discover that something had timed out and Pacman decided this was a good reason to halt the entire download process and not retry at all.

kano · 2007-05-29 04:10:55

attila wrote:

kano wrote:
pacman3 seemed alot faster for me aswell, using XFS w/ noatime,nodiratime,logbufs=8
noatime,nodiratime is from my view even a good idea for every linux filesystem and i use it with jfs too.
The disadvantage of xfs is that it caches very much in the memory and in the worst case (yes, instead of i loves linux, i never would say that it don't crashes) the result been empty files. In my case this happens with ~/.kde and all time what i perhaps have won with a faster filesysten i got loose with config my whole kde a second time. Sure, this was my error because at this time i don't backup ~/.kde.-)

I guess I'm just lucky then, I've never had any crashes so bad that I couldn't shut down properly I also run on battery backup so power loss is not an issue for me, and I keep weekly backups of my entire /home partition (which is also on XFS)

skinney · 2007-05-29 14:36:28

attila wrote:

kano wrote:
pacman3 seemed alot faster for me aswell, using XFS w/ noatime,nodiratime,logbufs=8
noatime,nodiratime is from my view even a good idea for every linux filesystem and i use it with jfs too.
The disadvantage of xfs is that it caches very much in the memory and in the worst case (yes, instead of i loves linux, i never would say that it don't crashes) the result been empty files. In my case this happens with ~/.kde and all time what i perhaps have won with a faster filesysten i got loose with config my whole kde a second time. Sure, this was my error because at this time i don't backup ~/.kde.-)

Just out of curiosity, how do i add these options to my XFS partition? Do i replace the place that reads "default" in fstab to read noatime,nodiratime instead?

kano · 2007-05-29 19:08:09

skinney wrote:

Just out of curiosity, how do i add these options to my XFS partition? Do i replace the place that reads "default" in fstab to read noatime,nodiratime instead?

Yup.

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1479435 is a good read if you're looking to get the most performance out of XFS.

Last edited by kano (2007-05-29 19:10:51)

Arch Linux

#1 2007-05-21 01:51:45

Pacman 3.0 is terrific

#2 2007-05-21 03:42:20

Re: Pacman 3.0 is terrific

#3 2007-05-21 04:38:32

Re: Pacman 3.0 is terrific

#4 2007-05-21 04:43:10

Re: Pacman 3.0 is terrific

#5 2007-05-21 06:14:50

Re: Pacman 3.0 is terrific

#6 2007-05-21 08:55:55

Re: Pacman 3.0 is terrific

#7 2007-05-23 01:23:30

Re: Pacman 3.0 is terrific

#8 2007-05-23 12:51:15

Re: Pacman 3.0 is terrific

#9 2007-05-23 16:29:23

Re: Pacman 3.0 is terrific

#10 2007-05-23 16:34:22

Re: Pacman 3.0 is terrific

#11 2007-05-23 20:03:50

Re: Pacman 3.0 is terrific

#12 2007-05-24 07:49:10

Re: Pacman 3.0 is terrific

#13 2007-05-24 09:08:30

Re: Pacman 3.0 is terrific

#14 2007-05-24 18:03:47

Re: Pacman 3.0 is terrific

#15 2007-05-24 19:42:40

Re: Pacman 3.0 is terrific

#16 2007-05-24 21:26:37

Re: Pacman 3.0 is terrific

#17 2007-05-25 01:21:39

Re: Pacman 3.0 is terrific

#18 2007-05-25 08:13:25

Re: Pacman 3.0 is terrific

#19 2007-05-29 02:52:41

Re: Pacman 3.0 is terrific

#20 2007-05-29 04:10:55

Re: Pacman 3.0 is terrific

#21 2007-05-29 14:36:28

Re: Pacman 3.0 is terrific

#22 2007-05-29 19:08:09

Re: Pacman 3.0 is terrific

Board footer