Update pack integration time compare.

Forum for anything else which doesn't fit in the above forums. Site feedback, random talk, whatever, are welcome.
Post Reply
User avatar
shiner
Posts: 655
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 4:18 am
Location: SE Asia

Update pack integration time compare.

Post by shiner » Thu Oct 14, 2010 7:55 am

I am thinking about buying some new hardware before the end of the year and want to know about how much of an improvement I will see with more current hardware.

I just integrated u_h's qfe 1.44 update pack(only) on a clean XP SP3 directory and got the following time for the integration:
16:20:48 - Total Integration Time = 1376 Seconds
This is with a 1.53 ghz athlon cpu, 1 gb ddr1 ram, and a PATA hard drive.

I am wondering if another member with more recent hardware could post their integration time and the HW setup (cpu, ram, ssd)?
"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink."

User avatar
5eraph
Site Admin
Posts: 4621
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:38 pm
Location: Riverview, MI USA

Post by 5eraph » Thu Oct 14, 2010 9:07 am

Relevant hardware: (was reasonably considered high-performance 5-6 years ago, still performs fairly well now)
  • Intel Pentium D 930 @ 3.0 GHz
  • 4 GB 800 MHz DDR2 RAM
  • SATA hard drive (non-SSD)
Your hard drive is the most significant bottleneck when integrating. You should get much better integration times just by upgrading to a mechanical SATA drive and keeping it defragmented.

Do you enable "Use Cached driver.cab" under the Advanced tab? This can dramatically reduce integration time when the cache is current. Also, do you have the integrator copy your I386 directory? This adds time to the process.

Without caching, no I386 copying; total integration time = 558 seconds.
With good cache, no I386 copying; total integration time = 209 seconds.

User avatar
shiner
Posts: 655
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 4:18 am
Location: SE Asia

Post by shiner » Thu Oct 14, 2010 9:28 am

Thanks for the repy 5eraph.

No, I have never used the "Use Cached driver.cab" option as it simply never occurred to me. I will give that a look see.

If by copy the i386 directory you mean do I select a new destination directory for the integrated result, yes most of the time. So, you're saying copying the directory first with Windows and then integrating without selecting the destination directory, overall would be quicker? I will also consider doing that with my current hardware.

Still, a new PC with a more modern cpu, more ram, and possibly an ssd looks like it would improve integration times compared to my current setup even with those adjustments.
"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink."

User avatar
5eraph
Site Admin
Posts: 4621
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:38 pm
Location: Riverview, MI USA

Post by 5eraph » Thu Oct 14, 2010 10:54 am

shiner wrote:Still, a new PC with a more modern cpu, more ram, and possibly an ssd looks like it would improve integration times compared to my current setup even with those adjustments.
Correct, all new hardware will improve integration speed. A faster processor will improve file compression speed. And a solid state hard drive should effectively remove the file system bottleneck.
shiner wrote:If by copy the i386 directory you mean do I select a new destination directory for the integrated result, yes most of the time. So, you're saying copying the directory first with Windows and then integrating without selecting the destination directory, overall would be quicker? I will also consider doing that with my current hardware.
Further testing here shows that Windows file caching seems to prevent any noticeable delays if a destination directory is selected in RVMi, contrary to what I've said previously.
  • Without caching, Destination unspecified; total integration time = 558 seconds.
    Without caching, Destination specified; total integration time = 554 seconds.
    With good cache, Destination unspecified; total integration time = 209 seconds.
    With good cache, Destination specified; total integration time = 209 seconds.
Accounting for a one percent margin of error, there is no difference. But be aware that RVMi does not copy the entire source when a destination directory is defined. I don't like this behavior which is the reason I copy manually.

User avatar
shiner
Posts: 655
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 4:18 am
Location: SE Asia

Post by shiner » Thu Oct 14, 2010 6:01 pm

Thanks again, 5eraph for taking the time to check that.

But be aware that RVMi does not copy the entire source when a destination directory is defined.
Yet another thing I didn't know.
"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink."

User avatar
5eraph
Site Admin
Posts: 4621
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:38 pm
Location: Riverview, MI USA

Post by 5eraph » Thu Oct 14, 2010 8:46 pm

RVMi will only copy the CMPNENTS and I386 folders from the source. It ignores DOCS, SUPPORT, VALUEADD and other directories that may exist.

User avatar
shiner
Posts: 655
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 4:18 am
Location: SE Asia

Post by shiner » Fri Oct 15, 2010 4:16 am

Do you enable "Use Cached driver.cab" under the Advanced tab?
This can dramatically reduce integration time when the cache is current.
Thanks 5eraph for this tip!

Successive integrations using update pack 1.44 after enabling the caching option have reduced the integration time from 1300+ seconds to 507 seconds on my machine.
This makes sorting out integration errors with a particular pack much more efficient.
"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink."

User avatar
dumpydooby
Posts: 530
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 6:09 am

Post by dumpydooby » Fri Oct 15, 2010 4:47 am

1.53 ghz athlon, 3.5 gb ram, 7500RPM PATA

It's not on at the moment, but I believe it clocks in at about 1700 seconds with latest update pack, plus WMP11 and IE8.

The only real difference is compression. When I integrate only svcpack addons, there is no significant difference in time between that machine and my dual-core 3.0 ghz machine with 4gb of ram. This is of course assuming that I'm not multitasking.

Post Reply