maven-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Lyons, Roy" <>
Subject Re: System-wide, read-only repository
Date Wed, 30 Oct 2013 15:43:39 GMT
:) but like I said, you wouldnt worry about the space if it was all on
zfs.  zfs has built in de-duplication.  you could have 2000 local maven
repos and probably not fill your disk since most of it has to do with
duplicate jars and such.

On 10/30/13 10:37 AM, "Curtis Rueden" <> wrote:

>Hi all,
>There is plenty of room for improvement regarding reuse of Maven's local
>repository cache. Releases in particular are supposed to be immutable so
>once they are downloaded they could go into a read-only tier as suggested
>by Stephen. Inventing such a scheme to reuse large portions of the repo
>cache would be of great benefit to the Maven community.
>E.g.: the recommended CIS strategy is for every job to use its own local
>repo cache, which becomes very large. My Jenkins has dozens of Maven build
>jobs and I cannot afford the bloat; my Jenkins backups are huge enough
>already. So what I do instead is limit my Maven Jenkins node to a single
>executor, which is a real waste on a 16 core machine. Much better would be
>if the jobs could share the bulk of the repo cache.
>So it's definitely an itch, but not quite itchy enough for anyone to
>scratch yet...
> On Oct 30, 2013 8:35 AM, "Mark H. Wood" <> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 10:18:49AM +0100, Matthieu Moy wrote:
>> > Barrie Treloar <> writes:
>> >
>> > > On 29 October 2013 23:56, Lyons, Roy <> wrote:
>> > >> Unfortunately, you will always have something in
>> > >> because that's how maven works.
>> > >>
>> > >> Can I suggest perhaps that you use zfs for deduplication in /home?
>> > >> Otherwise, you can add something like
>> > >
>> > > Or give them more disk space - isn't this stuff meant to be cheap
>> now-a-days?
>> >
>> > Local disk space is cheap. NFS-shared, RAID & backed-up disk space,
>> > so. I can live with a few Gb of waste, but I was just wondering
>> > we could do any better.
>> Disks are cheap.  But not free.  Running the procurement gantlet is
>> not free.  Downtime to install new storage is not free.  Lord knows
>> that additional backup tapes are not free, not even cheap.  Longer
>> backup windows are not free.  Throwing storage at the problem is often
>> a reasonable choice, but it's also reasonable to always ask if there
>> isn't a better way.
>> Sorry, I've been aching to write that for a long time....
>> --
>> Mark H. Wood, Lead System Programmer   mwood@IUPUI.Edu
>> Machines should not be friendly.  Machines should be obedient.

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message