From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Fabian =?iso-8859-1?Q?Gr=FCnbichler?= Subject: Re: increasingly large packages and longer build times Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 08:59:06 +0200 Message-ID: <20170808065906.luvs5b3xmlzfg7we@nora.maurer-it.com> References: <1a1057ce-581f-8fe5-b474-d41e75c2f56a@digiware.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from proxmox.maurer-it.com ([212.186.127.180]:25016 "EHLO proxmox.maurer-it.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751880AbdHHHFc (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Aug 2017 03:05:32 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1a1057ce-581f-8fe5-b474-d41e75c2f56a@digiware.nl> Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Willem Jan Withagen Cc: Ken Dreyer , Alfredo Deza , ceph-devel On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 05:30:06PM +0200, Willem Jan Withagen wrote: > On 7-8-2017 16:58, Ken Dreyer wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 7:39 AM, Alfredo Deza wrote: > >> The ceph-debuginfo package has continued to increase in size on almost > >> every release, reaching 1.5GB for the latest luminous RC (12.1.2). > >> > >> To contrast that, the latest ceph-debuginfo in Hammer was about 0.73GB. > >> > >> Having packages that large is problematic on a few fronts: > > > > I agree Alfredo. Here's a similar issue I am experiencing with the source sizes: > > > > Jewel sizes: > > 14M ceph-10.2.7.tar.gz > > 82M ceph-10.2.7 uncompressed > > > > Luminous sizes: > > 142M ceph-12.1.2.tar.gz > > 709M ceph-12.1.2 uncompressed > > I'm on that same page. > +1 (Proxmox VE, also building downstream packages) Boost seems to be by far the biggest culprit - we initially built our packages using the system boost option to save some space, but this broke one time too often and we are now also shuffling tons of data around for every version bump.