Skip to content


Lift Off

Enough of this "2 years" nonsense. We're finally ready for lift off. It is with immense pleasure we can finally announce that Serpent OS has transitioned from a promise to a deliverable. Bye bye, phantomware!

We exist

As mentioned, we spent 2 years working on tooling and process. That's .. well. Kinda dull, honestly. You're not here for the tooling, you're here for the OS. To that end I made a decision to accelerate development of the actual Linux distro - and shift development of tooling into a parallel effort.

Infrastructure .. intelligently deferred

I deferred final enabling of the infrastructure until January to rectify the chicken/egg scenario whilst allowing us to grow a base of contributors and an actual distro to work with. We're in a good position with minimal blockers so no concern there.

A real software collection

This is our term for the classical "package repository". We're using a temporary collection right now to store all of the builds we produce. In keeping with the Avalanche requirements, this is the volatile software collection. Changes a lot, hasn't got a release policy.

A community.

It goes without saying, really, that our project isn't remotely possible without a community. I want to take the time to personally thank everyone that stepped up to the plate lately and contributed to Serpent OS. Without the work of the team, in which I include the contributors to our venom recipe repository, an ISO was never possible. Additionally contributions to tooling has helped us make significant strides.

It should be noted we've practically folded our old "team" concept and ensured we operate across the board as a singular community, with some members having additional responsibilities. Our belief is all in the community have equal share and say. With that said, to the original "team", members both past and present, I thank for their (long) support and contributions to the project.


We actually went ahead and created our first ISO. OK that's a lie, this is probably the 20th revision by now. And let's be brutally honest here:

It sucks.

We expected no less. However, the time is definitely here for us to begin our public iteration, transitioning from suckness to a project worth using. In order to do that, we need to get ourselves to a point whereby we can dogfood our work and build a daily driver. Our focus right now is building out the core technology and packaging to achieve those aims.

So if you want to try our uninstallable, buggy ISO, chiefly created as a brief introduction to our package manager and toolchain, head to our newly minted Download page. Set your expectations low, ignore your dreams, and you will not be disappointed!

All jokes aside, it took a long time to get to point where we could even construct our first, KVM-focused, UEFI-only snekvalidator.iso. We now have a baseline to improve on, a working contribution process, and a booting, self-hosting system.

The ISO is built using 2 layered collections, the protosnek collection containing our toolchain, and the new volatile collection. Much of the packaging work has been submitted by venom contributors and the core team. Note you can install neofetch which our very own Rune Morling (ermo) patched to support the Serpent OS logo.

Boot it in Qemu (or certain Intel laptops) and play with moss now! Note, this ISO is not installable, and no upgrade path exists. It is simply the beginnings of a public iteration process.

Next steps

In January we'll launch our infrastructure to scale out contributions as well as to permit the mass-rebuilds that need to happen. We have to enable our -dbginfo packages and stripping, which were disabled due to a parallelism issue. We need to introduce our boot management based around systemd-boot, provide more kernels, do hardware enabling, introduce moss-triggers, and much more. However, this is a pivotal moment for our project as we've finally become a real, if not sucky, distro. The future is incredibly bright, and we intend to deliver on every one of our promises.

As always, if you want to support our development, please consider sponsoring the work, or engaging with the community on Matrix or indeed our forums.

You can discuss this blog post, or leave feedback on the ISO, over at our forums.

The Big Update

Well - we've got some big news! The past few weeks have been an incredibly busy time for us, and we've hit some major milestones.


After much deliberation - we've decided to pull out of Open Collective. Among other reasons, the fees are simply too high and severely impact the funds available to us. In our early stages, the team consensus is that funds generated are used to compensate my time working on Serpent OS.

As such I'm now moving funding to my own GitHub Sponsors page - please do migrate! It ensures your entire donation makes it and keeps the lights on for longer =) Please remember I'm working full time on Serpent OS exclusively - I need your help to keep working.

Moved to GitHub

We've pretty much completed our transition to GitHub. We've now got the following organisations:


Don't forget - our forums are live over at - please feel free to drop in and join in with the community =)

Rehash on the tooling

OK so what exactly are moss and boulder? In short - they're the absolute core pieces of our distribution model.

"What is moss?"

On the surface, moss looks and feels roughly the same as just about any other traditional package manager out there. Internally, however, its far more modern and has a few tricks up its sleeve. For instance, every time you initiate an operation in moss, be it installation, removal, upgrade, etc, a new filesystem transaction is generated. In short, if something is wrong with the new transaction - you can just boot to an older transaction when things worked fine.

Now, it's not implemented using bundles or filesystem specific functionality, internally its just intelligent use of hardlinks and deduplication policies, and we have our own container format with zstd based payload compression. Our strongly typed, deduplicating binary format is what powers moss.

Behind the scenes we also use some other cool technology, such as LMDB for super reliable and speedy database access. The net result is a next generation package management solution that offers all the benefits of traditional package managers (i.e. granularity and composition) with new world features, like atomic updates, deduplication, and repository snapshots.


It's one thing to manage and install packages, it's another entirely to build them. boulder builds conceptually on prior art such as pisi and the package.yml format used in ypkg. It is designed with automation and ease of integration in mind, i.e. less time spent focusing on packaging and more time on actually getting the thing building and installing correctly.

Boulder supports "macros" as seen in the RPM and ypkg world, to support consistent builds and integration. Additionally it automatically splits up packages into the appropriate subpackages, and automatically scans for binary, pkgconfig, perl and other dependencies during source analysis and build time. The end result is some .stone binary packages and a build manifest, which we use to flesh out our source package index.

Major moss improvements

We've spent considerable time reworking moss, our package manager. It now features a fresher (terminal) user interface, progress bars, and is rewritten to use the moss-db module encapsulating LMDB.


It's also possible to manipulate the binary collections (software repositories) used by moss now. Note we're going to rename "remote" to "collection" for consistency.

At the time of writing:

$ mkdir destdir
$ sudo moss remote add -D destdir protosnek
$ sudo moss install -D destdir bash dash dbus dbus-broker systemd coreutils util-linux which moss nano
$ sudo systemd-nspawn -b -D destdir

This will be simplified once we introduce virtual packages (Coming Soon ™)

Local Collections

Boulder can now be instructed to utilise a local collection of stone packages, simplifying the development of large stack items.

sudo boulder bi stone.yml -p local-x86_64

Packages should be moved to /var/cache/boulder/collections/local-x86_64 and the index can be updated by running:

sudo moss idx /var/cache/boulder/collections/local-x86_64

Self Hosting

Serpent OS is now officially self hosting. Using our own packages, we're able to construct a root filesystem, then within that rootfs container we can use our own build tooling (boulder) to construct new builds of our packages in a nested container.

The protosnek collection has been updated to include the newest versions of moss and boulder.

self hosting


As a fun experiment, we wanted to see how far along things are. Using a throwaway kernel + initrd build, we were able to get Serpent OS booting using virtualisation (qemu)


ISO When?

Right now everyone is working in the snekpit organisation to get our base packaging in order. I'm looking to freeze protosnek, our bootstrap collection, at the latest of tomorrow evening.

We now support layered, priority based collections (repositories) and dependency solving across collection boundaries, allowing us to build our new main collection with protosnek acting as a bootstrap seed.

Throughout this week, I'll focus on getting Avalanche, Summit and Vessel into shape for PoC so that we can enjoy automated builds of packages landing in the yet-to-be-launched volatile collection.

From there, we're going to iterate + improve packaging, fixing bugs and landing features as we discover the issues. Initially we'll look to integrate triggers in a stateless-friendly fashion (our packages can only ship /usr by design) - after that will come boot management.

An early target will be Qemu support via a stripped linux-kvm package to accelerate the bring up, and we encourage everyone to join in the testing. We're self hosting, we know how to boot, and now we're able to bring the awesome.

I cannot stress how important the support to the project is. Without it - I'm unable to work full time on the project. Please consider supporting my development work via GitHub Sponsors.

I'm so broke they've started naming black holes after my IBAN.

Thank you!

You can discuss this blog post over on our forums

Infrastructure Update

Since the last post, I've pivoted to full time work on Serpent OS, which is made all the more possible thanks to everyone supporting us via OpenCollective <3.

We've been working towards establishing an online infrastructure to support the automation of package builds, while revisiting some core components.


During the development of the Serpent OS tooling we've been exploring the possibilities of D Lang, picking up new practices and refining our approach as we go. Naturally, some of our older modules are somewhat ... smelly. Most noticeable is our moss-db module, which was initially intended as a lightweight wrapper around RocksDB.

In practice that required an encapsulation API written in D around the C API, and our own wrapping on top of that. Naturally, it resulted in a very allocation-heavy implementation that just didn't sit right with us, and due to the absurd complexity of RocksDB was still missing quite a few features.

Enter LMDB

We're now using the Lightning Memory-Mapped Database as the driver implementation for moss-db. In short, we get rapid reads, ACID transactions, bulk inserts, you name it. Our implementation takes advantage of multiple database indexes (MDB_dbi) in LMDB to partition the database into internal components, so that we can provide "buckets", or collections. These internal DBs are used for bucket mapping to permit a key-compaction strategy - iteration of top level buckets and key-value pairs within a bucket.

Hat tip, boltdb

The majority of the API was designed with the boltdb API in mind. Additionally it was built with -preview=dip1000 and -preview=in enabled, ensuring safely scoped memory use and no room for memory lifetime issues. While we prefer the use of generics, the API is built with immutable(ubyte[]) as the internal key and value type.

Custom types can simply implement mossEncode or mossDecode to be instantly serialisable into the database as keys, values or bucket identifiers.

Example API usage:

Database db;
/* setup the DB with lmdb:// URI */

/* Write transaction */
auto err = db.update((scope tx) @safe
    auto bucket = tx.bucket("letters");
    return tx.set(bucket, "a", 1);

/* do something with the error */

err = db.view((in tx) @safe
    foreach (name, bucket ; tx.buckets!int)
        foreach (key, value ; tx.iterator!(string,string)(bucket))
            /* do something with the key value pairs, decoded as strings */

    /* WILL NOT COMPILE. tx is const scope ref :) */

    return NoDatabaseError;

Next for moss

Moss will be ported to the new DB API and we'll gather some performance metrics, while implementing features like expired state garbage collection (disk cleanup), searching for names/descriptions, etc.


Early version of avalanche, in development

Avalanche is a core component of our upcoming infrastructure, providing the service for running builds on a local node, and a controller to coordinate a group of builders.

Summit will be the publicly accessible project dashboard, and will be responsible for coordinating incoming builds to Avalanche controllers and repositories. Developers will submit builds to Summit and have them dispatched correctly.

So far we have the core service process in place for the Controller + Node, and now we're working on persistence and handshake. TLDR; fancy use of moss-db and JSON Web tokens over mandated SSL. This means our build infra will be scalable from day 1 allowing multiple builders to be online very early on.


We're planning to get an early version of our infrastructure up and running within the next 2 weeks, and get builds flowing =)

Packaging Automation, Next Steps

Hot damn we've been busy lately. No, really. The latest development cycle saw us focus exclusively on boulder, our build tooling. As of today it features a proof of concept boulder new subcommand for the automatic generation of packaging templates from an upstream source (i.e. tarball).

Before we really start this blog post off, I'd like to thank everyone who is supporting the project! All of the OpenCollective contributions will make it easier for me to work full time on Serpent OS =) Much love <3

Look at all the buildiness

But, but build flavours ...

Alright you got me there, certain projects prefer to abstract the configuration, build and installation of packages and be provided with some kind of hint to the build system, i.e. manually setting autotools, etc.

Serpent OS packaging is declarative and well structured, and relies on the use of RPM-style "macros" for distribution integration and common tasks to ensure consistent packaging.

We prefer a self documenting approach that can be machine validated rather than depending on introspection at the time of build. Our stone.yml format is very flexible and powerful, with automatic runtime dependencies and package splitting as standard.

..Doesn't mean we can't make packaging even easier though.

Build discovery

Pointing boulder at an upstream source will perform a deep analysis of the sources to determine the build system type, build dependencies, metadata, licensing etc. Right now it's just getting ready to leave POC stage so it has a few warts, however it does have support for generating package skeletons for the following build systems:

  • cmake
  • meson
  • autotools

We're adding automation for Perl and Python packaging (and Golang, Rust, etc) so we can enforce consistency, integration and ease without being a burden on developers. This will greatly reduce the friction of contribution - allowing anyone to package for Serpent OS.

We're also able to automatically discover build time dependencies during analysis and add those to the skeleton stone.yml file. We'll enhance support for other build systems as we go, ensuring that each new package is as close to done on creation as possible, with review and iteration left to the developer.

License compliance

A common pain in the arse when packaging for any Linux distribution is ensuring the package information is compliant in terms of licensing. As such we must know all of the licensing information, as well as FSF and OSI compliance for our continuous integration testing.

...Finding all of that information is truly a painful process when conducted manually. Thankfully boulder can perform analysis of all licensing files within the project to greatly improve compliance and packaging.

Every license listed in a stone.yml file must use a valid SPDX identifier, and be accurate. boulder now scans all license files, looking for matches with both SPDX IDs as well as fuzzy-matching the text of input licenses to make a best-guess at the license ID.

This has so far been highly accurate and correctly identifies many hundreds of licenses, ensuring a compliant packaging process with less pain for the developers. Over time we'll optimise and improve this process to ensure compliance for our developers rather than blocking them.

As of today we support the REUSE specification for expressing software licenses too!

Next on the list

The next steps are honest-to-goodness exciting for us. Or should I say.. exiting?


Work formally begins now on Bootstrap Bill (Turner). Whilst we did successfully bootstrap Serpent OS and construct the Protosnek repository, the process for that is not reproducible as boulder has gone through massive changes in this time.

The new project will leverage boulder and a newly designed bootstrap process to eliminate all host contamination and bootstrap Serpent OS from stone.yml files, emitting an immutable bootstrap repository.

Layering support will land in moss and boulder to begin the infrastructure projects.

Build Submission ("Let's Roll")

The aim is to complete bill in a very short time so we can bring some initial infrastructure online to facilitate the automatic build of submitted build jobs. We'll use this process to create our live repository, replacing the initial bootstrap repository from bill.

At this point all of the tooling we have will come together to allow us all to very quickly iterate on packaging, polish up moss and race towards installed systems with online updates.

A Word From The Founder

Well well, it's been a long time since I personally wrote a post.. :) So let's keep this short and sweet, shall we? I'm returning to full time work on Serpent OS.

The 6th of July will be my last day at my current employment having tendered my 30 day notice today. Despite having enjoyment at my current position, the reality is that my passion and focus is Serpent OS.

I'm now in a transition process and will ramp up my efforts with Serpent OS. Realistically I need to reduce the outgoing costs of the project and with your help I can gain some level of financial support as we move through the next stages of development. Worst case, I will only take on any part-time or contractual gigs, allowing my primary focus to be Serpent OS.

I'll begin accelerating works and enabling community contribution so we can get the derailed-alpha train back on the tracks.

I have absolute faith in this project, the community and our shared ability to deliver the OS and tooling. To achieve it will require far more of my time and I'm perfectly willing to give it.

Thank you all to everyone who has been supporting the project, it is now time to deliver. Not just another run of the mill distribution but a technically competent and usable distribution that is not only different but better.

Let's do this in the most grassroots and enjoyable way possible =)

RELR Brings Smaller Files, More Performance?

RELR is an efficient method of storing relative relocations (but is not yet available in glibc upstream). This has a significant reduction on file size often in the vicinity of 5% for libraries and even higher for PIE binaries. We also take a look at the performance impact on enabling RELR and that looks really good too! Smaller files with more performance - you can have your cake and eat it too!

Delicious Size Savings

Everyone enjoys smaller files, especially when it's for free! RELR provides a very efficient method of storing relative relocations where it only requires a few percent compared to storing them in the .rela.dyn section which is what currently happens. However, it can't store everything so the .rela.dyn section remains (though much smaller).

Here's an example of the sections of with and without RELR. Here we see the .rela.dyn section taking up a whole 2MB! When enabling RELR, .rela.dyn shrinks down to just under 100KB while adding a new section .relr.dyn which is just over 20KB! That's nearly a 1.9MB file size reduction, so you'll get smaller packages, smaller updates and it will be even faster to create delta packages from our servers. For reference, some of the biggest files have a .rela.dyn section over 10MB!

Section Without RELR With RELR
.dynstr 2,285,738 2,285,723
.rela.dyn 2,006,472 97,464
.relr.dyn - 21,688
.text 28,708,290 28,708,386
.dynamic 592 608
Total 44,853,987 42,966,764

Smaller, But at What Cost?

While most of the discussion about RELR is around the size savings, there's been very little in terms of the performance numbers of enabling RELR. For most things, it's not going to make a noticeable difference, as it should only really impact loading of binaries. There's one rule we have and that's to measure everything! We care about every little detail where many 1-2% improvements can add up to significant gains.

First, we require a test to determine if we could detect changes between an LLVM built with RELR and one without. The speed of the compiler is vital to a distro, where lackluster performance of the build system hurts all contributors and anyone performing source based builds. clang in this example was built using a shared libLLVM so that it would load the RELR section and it's large enough to be able to measure a difference in load times (if one exists). Building gettext was the chosen test (total time includes tarball extraction, configure, make and make install stages), rather than a synthetic binary loading test to reflect real world usage. The configure stage is very long when building gettext so clang is called many times for short compiles. Lets take a look at the results:

no RELR:
[Build] Finished: 1 minute, 57 secs, 80 ms, 741 μs, and 2 hnsecs
[Build] Finished: 1 minute, 57 secs, 691 ms, 586 μs, and 4 hnsecs
[Build] Finished: 1 minute, 56 secs, 861 ms, 31 μs, and 8 hnsecs

[Build] Finished: 1 minute, 55 secs, 244 ms, 213 μs, and 8 hnsecs
[Build] Finished: 1 minute, 55 secs, 400 ms, 158 μs, and 8 hnsecs
[Build] Finished: 1 minute, 55 secs, 775 ms, 40 μs, and 8 hnsecs

RELR+startup patch:
[Build] Finished: 1 minute, 54 secs, 979 ms, 166 μs, and 8 hnsecs
[Build] Finished: 1 minute, 54 secs, 820 ms, and 675 μs
[Build] Finished: 1 minute, 54 secs, 713 ms, 440 μs, and 3 hnsecs

Here we see the base configuration was able to build gettext in 117.21s on average. When we enabled RELR in our LLVM build (all other packages were without RELR still), the average build time decreased by 1.74s! That does not sound like a lot, but the time spent loading clang would only be a portion of the total, yet still gives a 1-2% performance lift over the whole build. While we were reducing start up time, I ran another test, but this time adding a patch to reduce paths searched on startup as well as enabling RELR. This patch reduced the average build time by a further 0.63s!

That's a 2.37s reduction in the build just from improving the clang binary's load time.

What This Means - RELR by Default

So what actually is RELR? I can't really do the topic justice, so will point you to a great blog post about RELR, Relative Relocations and RELR. It's quite technical for the average reader, but definitely worth a read if you like getting into the details. To no surprise the author (Fangrui Song) started the initial push for getting RELR support upstream in glibc (at the time of this post the patch series has not yet been committed to glibc git).

What I can tell you, is that we've applied the requisite patches for RELR support and enabled RELR by default in boulder for builds. Our container has been rebuilt and all is working well with RELR enabled. More measurements will be done in future in the same controlled manner, particularly around PIE load times.

Caveats - The Hidden Details

The performance benchmark was quite limited in terms of being an optimal case for RELR as clang is called thousands of times in the build so on average improved load time by about 0.6-0.7ms. We can presume that using RELR on smaller files is unlikely to regress load times. It definitely gives us confidence that it would be about the same or better in most situations, but not noticeable or measurable in most use cases. Minimizing build times is a pretty significant target for us, so even these small gains are appreciated.

The size savings can vary between packages and not everything can be converted into the .relr.dyn section. The current default use of RELR is not without cost as it adds a version dependency on glibc. We will ensure we ship a sane implementation that minimizes or removes such overhead.

It was also not straight forward to utilize RELR in Serpent. The pending upstream glibc patch series included a patch which caused issues when enabling RELR in Serpent OS (patch 3/5). As we utilize two toolchains, gcc/bfd and clang/lld, both need to function independently to create outputs of a functional OS. However the part "Issue an error if there is a DT_RELR entry without GLIBC_ABI_DT_RELR dependency nor GLIBC_PRIVATE definition." meant that glibc would refuse to load files linked by lld despite having the ability to load them. lld has supported RELR for some time already, but does not create the GLIBC_ABI_DT_RELR dependency that is required by glibc. I have added my feedback to the patch set upstream. lld now has support for this version dependency upstream if we ever decide to use it in future.

After dropping the patch and patching bfd to no longer generate the GLIBC_ABI_DT_RELR dependency either, I was finally able to build both glibc and LLVM with the same patches. With overcoming that hurdle, rebuilding the rest of the repository went without a hitch, so we are now enjoying RELR in all of our builds and is enabled by default.

There is even further scope for more size savings, by switching the rela.dyn section for the rel.dyn section (this is what is used for 32-bit builds and one of the reasons files are smaller!). lld supports switching the section type, but I don't believe glibc will read the output as it expects the psABI specified section (something musl can handle though).


The Cost of Adding GLIBC_ABI_DT_RELR

A quick check of two equivalent builds (one adding the GLIBC_ABI_DT_RELR version dependency and one not), there was an increase of 34 bytes to the file's sections (18 bytes to .dynstr and 16 bytes to .gnu.version_r). It also means having to validate that the GLIBC_ABI_DT_RELR version is present in the libc and that the file using RELR includes this version dependency. This may not sound like much but it is completely unnecessary! Note that the testing provided in this blog post is without GLIBC_ABI_DT_RELR.

Regardless of what eventuates, these negatives won't ship in Serpent OS. This will allow for us to support files that include the version dependency (when appimage and other distros catch up) as it will still exist in libc, but we won't have the version check in files, nor will glibc check that the version exists before loading for packages built by boulder.

Making Deltas Great Again! (Part 1)

In Optimising Package Distribution we discussed some early findings for implementing binary deltas in Serpent OS. While discussing the implementation we have found the requirements to be suboptimal for what we were after. We provide a fresh look at the issue and what we can do to make it useful in almost all situations without the drawbacks.

Deltas Have a Bad Reputation

I remember back in the early 2000s on Gentoo when someone set up a server to produce delta patches from source tarballs to distribute to users with small data caps such as myself. When requesting the delta, the job would be added to the queue (which occasionally could be minutes) and then created a small patch to download. This was so important at the time to reduce the download size that the extra time was well worth it!

Today things are quite different. The case for deltas has reduced for users as internet speeds have increased. Shrinking 20MB off a package size may be a second reduction for some, but 10 seconds for others. The largest issue is that deltas have typically pushed extra computational effort onto the users computer in compensation for the smaller size. With a fast internet connection that cost is a real burden where deltas take longer to install than simply downloading the full package.

What's so Bad About the Old Method?

The previous idea of using the full payload for deltas was very efficient in terms of distribution, but required changes in how moss handles packages to implement it. Having the previous payload available (and being fast) means storing the old payloads on disk. This increases the storage requirements for the base system, although that can be reduced by compressing the payloads to reduce disk usage (but increasing CPU usage at install time).

To make it work well, we needed the following requirements: - Install all the files from a package and recreate the payload from the individual files. However, Smart System Management allows users to avoid installing unneeded locale files and we would not be able to recreate the full payload without them. - Alternatively we can store the full payloads on disk. Then there becomes a tradeoff from doubling storage space or additional overhead from compressing the payloads to reduce it. - Significant memory requirements to use a delta when a package is large.

In short we weren't happy with having to increase the disk storage requirements (potentially more than 2x) or the increase in CPU time to create compressed payloads to minimize it. This was akin to the old delta model, of smaller downloads but significantly slower updates.

Exploring an Alternative Approach

Optimal compression generally benefits from combining multiple files into one archive than to compress each file individually. With zstd deltas, since you read in a dictionary (the old file), you already have good candidates for compression matching. The real question was simply whether creating a delta for each file was a viable method for delta distribution (packaged into a single payload of course).

As the real benefit of deltas is reducing download size, the first thing to consider is the size impact. Using the same package as the previous blog post (but with newer versions of QtWebEngine and zstd) we look at what happens when you delta each file individually. Note that the package is quite unique in that the largest file is 76% of the total package size and that delta creation time increased a lot for files larger than 15-20MB at maximum compression.

Full Tarball Individual Files Full Tarball --zstd=chainLog=30 Individual Files --zstd=chainLog=30
Time to create 134.6s 137.6s 157.9s 150.9s
Size of delta 30.8MB 29.8MB 28.3MB 28.6MB
Peak Memory 1.77GB 1.64GB 4.77GB 2.64GB

Quite surprisingly, the delta sizes were very close! Most surprising was that without increasing the size of the chainLog in zstd, the individual file approach actually resulted in smaller deltas! We can also see how much lower the memory requirements were (and they would be much smaller when there isn't one large file in the package!). Our locale and doc trimming of files will still work nicely, as we don't need to recreate the locale files that aren't installed (as we still don't want them!).

The architecture of moss allows us to cache packages, where all cached packages are available for generating multiple system roots including with our build tool boulder without any need for the original package file. Therefore any need to retain old payloads or packages is no longer required or useful, eliminating the drawbacks of the previous delta approach. The memory requirements are also reduced as the maximum memory requirement scales with the size of the largest file, rather than the entire package (which is generally a lot bigger). There are many packages containing hundreds of MBs of uncompressed data and a few into the GBs. But the largest file I could find installed locally was only 140MB, and only a handful over 100MB. This smaller increase in memory requirements is a huge improvement and the small increase in memory use to extract the deltas is likely to go unnoticed by users.

Well everything sounds pretty positive so far, there must be some drawback?


The Impact on Package Cache Time

As the testing method for this article is quite simplistic (bash loops and calls to zstd directly), the additional overhead from creating deltas for individual files I estimated to be about 20ms compared to a proper solution. The main difference from the old delta method is how we extract the payloads and recreate the files of the new package. Using the full package you simply extract the content payload and split it into its corresponding files. The new approach requires two steps, extracting the payload (we could in theory not compress it) and then applying patches to the original files to recreate the new ones. Note that times differ slightly from the previous table due to minor variations between test runs.

Normal Package Individual Delta File Package
Time to Delta Files - 148.0s (137 files)
Time to Compress Payload 78.6s 4.0s
Size of Uncompressed Payload 165.8MB 28.9MB
Size of Compressed Payload 51.3MB 28.6MB
Instructions to Extract Payload 2,876.9m (349ms) 33.1m (34ms)
Instructions to Recreate Files - 1,785.6m (452ms)
Total instructions to Extract 2,876.9m (349ms) 1,818.7m (486ms)

What's important to note is that is this reflects a worst case scenario for the delta approach, where all 137 files were different between the old and new version of the package. Package updates where files remain unchanged allows us to omit them from the delta package altogether! So the delta approach not only saves time downloading files, but also requires fewer CPU instructions to apply the update. It's not quite a slam dunk though as reading the original file as a dictionary results in an increase in elapsed time of extraction (though the extra time is likely much less than the time saved downloading 20MB less!).

In Part 2 we will look at some ways we can tweak the approach to balance the needed resources for creating delta packages and to reduce the time taken to apply them.

Note: This was intended to be a 2 part series as it contains a lot of information to digest.
However, Part 2 was committed and follows below.

There's more than one way to create a delta! This post follows on from the earlier analysis of creating some basic delta packages. Where this approach, and the use of zstd, really thrives is that it gives us options in how to manage the overhead, from creating the deltas to getting them installed locally. Next we explore some ideas of how we can minimize the caching time of delta files.

Improving Delta Cache Time

To get the best bang for your buck with deltas, it is essential to reduce the size of the larger files. My experience in testing was that there wasn't a significant benefit from creating deltas for small files. In this example, we only create delta files when they are larger than a specific size while including the full version of files that are under the cutoff. This reduces the number of delta files created without impacting the overall package size by much.

Only Delta Files Greater Than Greater than 10KB Greater than 100KB Greater than 500KB
Time to Delta Files 146.1s (72 files) 146.3s (64 files) 139.4s (17 files)
Time to Compress Payload 3.9s 4.0s 8.3s
Size of Uncompressed Payload 28.9MB 29.3MB 42.4MB
Size of Compressed Payload 28.6MB 28.7MB 30.5MB
Instructions to Extract Payload 37.8m (36ms) 34.7m (29ms) 299.1m (66ms)
Instructions to Recreate Files 1,787.7m (411ms) 1,815.0m (406ms) 1,721.4m (368ms)
Total instructions to Extract 1,825.5m (447ms) 1,849.7m (435ms) 2,020.5m (434ms)

Here we see that by not creating deltas for files under 100KB, it barely impacts the size of the delta at all, while reducing caching time by 50ms compared to creating a delta for every file (486ms from the previous blog post). It even leads to up to a 36% reduction in CPU instructions to undertake caching through the delta than using the full package. In terms of showing how effective this delta technique really is, I chose one of the worst examples and I would expect that many deltas would be faster to cache when there's files that are exact matches between the old and new package. The largest file alone took 300ms to apply the delta, where overheads tend to scale a lot when you start getting to larger files.

There are also some steps we can take to make sure that caching a delta is almost always faster than the full package (solving the only real drawback to users), only requiring Serpent OS resources to create these delta packages.

Creating More Efficient Deltas

For this article, all the tests have been run with zstd --ultra -22 --zstd=chainLog=30...until now! The individual file delta approach is more robust at lower compression levels to keep package size small while reducing how long they take to create. Lets take a look at the difference while also ensuring --long is enabled. This testing combined with the results above for only creating deltas for files larger than 10KB.

Individual Delta File Package zstd -12 zstd -16 zstd -19 zstd -22
Time to Delta Files 6.7s 113.9s 142.3s 148.3s
Time to Compress Payload 0.5s 3.2s 5.3s 4.0s
Size of Uncompressed Payload 41.1MB 30.6MB 28.9MB 28.9MB
Size of Compressed Payload 40.9MB 30.3MB 28.6MB 28.6MB
Instructions to Extract Payload 46.5m (35ms) 51.2m (28ms) 42.6m (33ms) 37.8m (36ms)
Instructions to Recreate Files 1,773.7m (382ms) 1,641.5m (385ms) 1,804.2m (416ms) 1,810.9m (430ms)
Total instructions to Extract 1,820.2m (417ms) 1,692.7m (413ms) 1,846.8m (449ms) 1,848.7m (466ms)

Compression levels 16-19 look quite interesting where you start to reduce the time taken to apply the delta as well and only seeing a small increase in size. For comparison, at -19 it only took 9s to delta the remaining 39.8MB of files when excluding the largest file (it was 15s at -22). While the time taken between 19 and 22 was almost the same, at -19 it took 27% fewer instructions to create the deltas than at -22 (-16 uses 64% fewer instructions than -22). It will need testing across a broader range of packages to see the overall impact and to evaluate a sensible default.

As a side effect of reducing the compression level, you also get another small decrease in the time to cache a package. The best news of all is that these numbers are already out of date. Testing was performed last year with zstd 1.5.0, where there have been notable speed improvements to both compression and decompression that have been included in newer releases. Great news given how fast it is already! Here's a quick summary of how it all ties together.

Delta's Are Back!

This blog series has put forward a lot of data that might be difficult to digest...but what does it mean for users of Serpent OS? Here's a quick summary of the advantages of using this delta method on individual files when compared to fetching the full packages:

  • Package update sizes are greatly reduced to speed up fetching of package updates.
  • moss architecture means that we have no need to leave packages on disk for later use, reducing the storage footprint. In fact, we could probably avoid writes (except for the extracted package of course!) by downloading packages to tmpfs where you have sufficient free memory.
  • Delta's can be used for updating packages for packaging and your installed system. There's no need for a full copy of the full original package for packaging. A great benefit when combined with the source repository.
  • Delta's are often overlooked due to being CPU intensive while most people have pretty decent internet speeds. This has a lot to do with how they are implemented.
  • With the current vision for Serpent OS deltas they will require fewer CPU instructions to use than full packages, but may slightly increase the time to cache some packages (but we are talking ms). But we haven't even considered the reduction in time taken to download the delta vs the full package which more than makes up the difference!
  • The memory requirements are reduced compared to the prior delta approach, especially if you factor in extracting the payload in memory (possibly using tmpfs) as part of installation.

Getting More Bang for Your Buck

There's still plenty more work to be done for implementing delta's in Serpent OS and they likely aren't that helpful early on. To make delta packages sustainable and efficient over the long run, we can make them even better and reduce some wastage. Here are some more ideas in how to make deltas less resource intensive and better for users:

  • As we delta each file individually, we could easily use two or more threads to speed up caching time. Using this package as an example, two threads would reduce the caching time to 334ms, the time the largest file took to recreate plus the time to extract the payload. Now the delta takes less time and CPU to cache than the full package!
  • zstd gives us options to tradeoff some increase in delta size to reduce the resources needed to create delta packages. This testing was performed with --ultra -22 --zstd=chainLog=30 which is quite slow, but produces the smallest files. Even reducing the compression level to -16 --long didn't result in a large increase in delta size.
  • We always have the option to not create deltas for small packages to ease the burden, but in reality the biggest overhead is created from large files.
  • When creating deltas, you typically generate them for multiple prior releases. We can use smart criteria when to stop delta generation from earlier releases for instance if they save less than 10% total size or less than 100KB. A delta against an earlier release will almost always be larger than versus a more recent release.

Even Better than These Numbers Suggest

While the numbers included have been nothing short of remarkable, they don't quite reflect how good this approach will be. The results shown lack some of the key advantages of our delta approach such as excluding files that are unchanged between the two packages. Other things that will show better results are:

  • When package updates include minimal changes between versions (and smaller files), we would expect the average package to be much closer in elapsed time than indicated in these results.
  • A quick test using a delta of two package builds of the same source version resulted in a 13MB delta (rather than the 28.6MB delta we had here). On top of that it took 62% fewer CPU instructions and less time (295ms) than the full package to extract (349ms) without resorting to multi-threading.
  • Delta creation of the average package will be quite fast where the largest files are <30MB. In our example, one file is 76% of the package size (126MB) but can take nearly 95% of the total creation time!
  • We will be applying features to our packages that will reduce file sizes (such as the much smaller RELR relocations and identical code folding), making the approach even better, but that will be for a future blog post.

Can Hardly Contain Myself, Plus a Bonus

One of the core steps for building a package is setting up a minimal environment with only the required (and stated) dependencies. Currently we have been building our stones in an systemd-nspawn container, where the root contains every package that's been built so far. This makes the environment extremely difficult to reproduce!

Today we announce moss-container, a simple but flexible container creator that we can integrate for proper containerized builds.

Versatile For Many Use Cases

Containers have a multitude of uses for a Linux distro, but our immediate use case is for reproducible container builds for boulder. However, we have plans to use moss-container for testing, validation and benchmarking purposes as well. Therefore it's important to consider all workloads, so features like fakeroot and networking can be toggled on or off depending on what features are needed.

moss-container takes care of everything, the device nodes in the /dev tree, mounting directories as tmpfs so the environment is left in a clean state, and mounting the /sys and /proc special file-systems. These are essential for a fully functioning container where programs like python and even clang won't work without them. And best of all, it's very fast so fits in well with the rest of our tooling!

The next step is integrating moss-container into boulder, so that builds become reproducible across machines, and makes it much easier for users to run builds on their host machines.

moss Now Understands Repositories

Previously (but not covered in the blogs) work was also done on moss so that it can understand and fetch stone packages from an online repo. This ties in nicely with the moss-container work and is a requirement for finishing up a proper build process for Serpent OS. We are now one step closer to having a full distribution cycle from building packages and pushing those packages as system updates!

Container with functioning device nodes

Check Out The Development

In case you've missed it, ikey has been streaming some of the development of the tooling on his Twitch channel. DLang is not as commonly used as other languages, so check it out to see the advantages it brings. Streams are typically announced on twitter, or give him a follow to see when he next goes live!

Bonus Content Refresh

This year we've had a considerable number of new visitors and interest in Serpent OS. Unfortunately the content on the website had been a bit stale and untouched for some time. There was some confusion and misunderstanding over some of the terms and content. Some of the common issues were:

  • Subscriptions is a loaded term relating to software
  • Subscriptions only referred to a fraction of the smart features
  • Seemed targeted at advanced users with too many technical terms
  • Lack of understanding around what moss and boulder do
  • That features would add complexity when the tools were actually removing the complexity

The good news is that a good chunk of it has been redone, including two new pages for our core tools boulder and moss. Subscriptions has been renamed to Smart System Management to reflect its broader nature (which you can read about here).

Much of the content has also had a refresh or a rewrite, so if you've seen it before, it will likely be a lot easier to digest now. But this isn't the final state of the content, as more features will need to be added and there's still a few rough edges (and I like to rewrite things every once in awhile). Many ideas have been raised by our community in the matrix channel, so a shout-out to the good folks we have hanging out there.