From dc916a80b63234b7fa80aa565be58a40f9f9ec98 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Petter Reinholdtsen The Debian installer could be
+a lot quicker. When we install more than 2000 packages in
+Skolelinux / Debian Edu using
+tasksel in the installer, unpacking the binary packages take forever.
+A part of the slow I/O issue was discussed in
+bug #613428 about too
+much file system sync-ing done by dpkg, which is the package
+responsible for unpacking the binary packages. Other parts (like code
+executed by postinst scripts) might also sync to disk during
+installation. All this sync-ing to disk do not really make sense to
+me. If the machine crash half-way through, I start over, I do not try
+to salvage the half installed system. So the failure sync-ing is
+supposed to protect against, hardware or system crash, is not really
+relevant while the installer is running. A few days ago, I thought of a way to get rid of all the file
+system sync()-ing in a fairly non-intrusive way, without the need to
+change the code in several packages. The idea is not new, but I have
+not heard anyone propose the approach using dpkg-divert before. It
+depend on the small and clever package
+eatmydata, which
+uses LD_PRELOAD to replace the system functions for syncing data to
+disk with functions doing nothing, thus allowing programs to live
+dangerous while speeding up disk I/O significantly. Instead of
+modifying the implementation of dpkg, apt and tasksel (which are the
+packages responsible for selecting, fetching and installing packages),
+it occurred to me that we could just divert the programs away, replace
+them with a simple shell wrapper calling
+"eatmydata $program $@", to get the same effect.
+Yesterday I decided to test the idea, and wrapped up a simple
+implementation for the Debian Edu udeb. The effect was stunning. In my first test it reduced the running
+time of the pkgsel step (installing tasks) from 64 to less than 44
+minutes (20 minutes shaved off the installation) on an old Dell
+Latitude D505 machine. I am not quite sure what the optimised time
+would have been, as I messed up the testing a bit, causing the debconf
+priority to get low enough for two questions to pop up during
+installation. As soon as I saw the questions I moved the installation
+along, but do not know how long the question were holding up the
+installation. I did some more measurements using Debian Edu Jessie,
+and got these results. The time measured is the time stamp in
+/var/log/syslog between the "pkgsel: starting tasksel" and the
+"pkgsel: finishing up" lines, if you want to do the same measurement
+yourself. In Debian Edu, the tasksel dialog do not show up, and the
+timing thus do not depend on how quickly the user handle the tasksel
+dialog.
+
+
+
+
+Machine/setup
+Original tasksel
+Optimised tasksel
+Reduction
+
+
+
+Latitude D505 Main+LTSP LXDE
+64 min (07:46-08:50)
+<44 min (11:27-12:11)
+>20 min 18%
+
+
+
+Latitude D505 Roaming LXDE
+57 min (08:48-09:45)
+34 min (07:43-08:17)
+23 min 40%
+
+
+
+Latitude D505 Minimal
+22 min (10:37-10:59)
+11 min (11:16-11:27)
+11 min 50%
+
+
+
+Thinkpad X200 Minimal
+6 min (08:19-08:25)
+4 min (08:04-08:08)
+2 min 33%
+
+
+
+Thinkpad X200 Roaming KDE
+19 min (09:21-09:40)
+15 min (10:25-10:40)
+4 min 21%
+
The test is done using a netinst ISO on a USB stick, so some of the +time is spent downloading packages. The connection to the Internet +was 100Mbit/s during testing, so downloading should not be a +significant factor in the measurement. Download typically took a few +seconds to a few minutes, depending on the amount of packages being +installed.
+ +The speedup is implemented by using two hooks in +Debian +Installer, the pre-pkgsel.d hook to set up the diverts, and the +finish-install.d hook to remove the divert at the end of the +installation. I picked the pre-pkgsel.d hook instead of the +post-base-installer.d hook because I test using an ISO without the +eatmydata package included, and the post-base-installer.d hook in +Debian Edu can only operate on packages included in the ISO. The +negative effect of this is that I am unable to activate this +optimization for the kernel installation step in d-i. If the code is +moved to the post-base-installer.d hook, the speedup would be larger +for the entire installation.
+ +I've implemented this in the +debian-edu-install +git repository, and plan to provide the optimization as part of the +Debian Edu installation. If you want to test this yourself, you can +create two files in the installer (or in an udeb). One shell script +need do go into /usr/lib/pre-pkgsel.d/, with content like this:
+ ++ ++#!/bin/sh +set -e +. /usr/share/debconf/confmodule +info() { + logger -t my-pkgsel "info: $*" +} +error() { + logger -t my-pkgsel "error: $*" +} +override_install() { + apt-install eatmydata || true + if [ -x /target/usr/bin/eatmydata ] ; then + for bin in dpkg apt-get aptitude tasksel ; do + file=/usr/bin/$bin + # Test that the file exist and have not been diverted already. + if [ -f /target$file ] ; then + info "diverting $file using eatmydata" + printf "#!/bin/sh\neatmydata $bin.distrib \"\$@\"\n" \ + > /target$file.edu + chmod 755 /target$file.edu + in-target dpkg-divert --package debian-edu-config \ + --rename --quiet --add $file + ln -sf ./$bin.edu /target$file + else + error "unable to divert $file, as it is missing." + fi + done + else + error "unable to find /usr/bin/eatmydata after installing the eatmydata pacage" + fi +} + +override_install +
To clean up, another shell script should go into +/usr/lib/finish-install.d/ with code like this: + +
+ ++#! /bin/sh -e +. /usr/share/debconf/confmodule +error() { + logger -t my-finish-install "error: $@" +} +remove_install_override() { + for bin in dpkg apt-get aptitude tasksel ; do + file=/usr/bin/$bin + if [ -x /target$file.edu ] ; then + rm /target$file + in-target dpkg-divert --package debian-edu-config \ + --rename --quiet --remove $file + rm /target$file.edu + else + error "Missing divert for $file." + fi + done + sync # Flush file buffers before continuing +} + +remove_install_override +
By now you might ask if this change should get into the normal +Debian installer too? I suspect it should, but am not sure the +current debian-installer coordinators find it useful enough. It also +depend on the side effects of the change. I'm not aware of any, but I +guess we will see if the change is safe after some more testing. +Perhaps there is some package in Debian depending on sync() and +fsync() having effect? Perhaps it should go into its own udeb, to +allow those of us wanting to enable it to do so without affecting +everyone.
-- 2.47.2