On Wednesday, January 1, 2025 5:00:10 PM MST Aurélien COUDERC wrote: > Le mercredi 1 janvier 2025, 19:33:34 UTC+1 Soren Stoutner a écrit : > > That is an interesting data point. Could you also run with > > --force-unsafe-io > > instead of eatmydata? I don’t know if there would be much of a difference > > (hence the reason for the need of a good benchmark), but as the proposal > > here > > is to enable --force-unsafe-io by default instead of eatmydata it would be > > interesting to see what the results of that option would be. > > Sure but I wouldn’t know how to do that since I’m calling apt and > force-unsafe-io seems to be a dpkg option ?
Can’t you just take the list of packages you have already downloaded with apt and install them with dpkg instead? The speed differential you have demonstrated with eatmydata is significant. I don’t know if --force-unsafe-io will produce the same speed differential or not, but if it does then I think you have met the criteria for it being worth our while to see if we can safely adopt at least some aspects of --force- unsafe-io, at least on some file systems. -- Soren Stoutner so...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
