Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Spike: performance impact of "read only layers" #703

Closed
natalieparellano opened this issue Sep 8, 2021 · 4 comments
Closed

Spike: performance impact of "read only layers" #703

natalieparellano opened this issue Sep 8, 2021 · 4 comments

Comments

@natalieparellano
Copy link
Member

Description

See comment: buildpacks/rfcs#155 (comment)

We would like to understand the performance impact of the proposal in order to inform the RFC discussion.

@mboldt
Copy link
Contributor

mboldt commented Mar 8, 2022

I can dive in to this.

@mboldt
Copy link
Contributor

mboldt commented Mar 31, 2022

I've done an initial experiment and captured it here: https://github.com/mboldt/lifecycle-703-read-only-layers

In short, hashing the layers directories after each buildpack runs doubled the (cached) build time for spring-petclinic-rest with the paketo buildpacks. This seems unacceptable.

More details in the experiment repo.

I propose giving a file system watcher a try as an alternate approach, to see if that might be less costly.

@mboldt
Copy link
Contributor

mboldt commented Apr 5, 2022

Implemented the file system watcher, and it is much more efficient. I've updated my experiment repo with this approach and the results.

I think this shows a performant approach to detect violation of the buildpack spec where two buildpacks modify the same layer, and therefore can close out this issue/spike.

@natalieparellano
Copy link
Member Author

Amazing work @mboldt ! buildpacks/rfcs#155 has all the context for anyone looking to continue the conversation.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants