Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:40:22 +0530
> "Arun Raghavan" <arunisgod@...> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 7:32 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
>> <ciaran.mccreesh@...> wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> I don't think that filename-vs-first-line is going to make a big
>>>> difference in practical performance.
>>> It's about a factor of five difference in cold-cache resolution
>>> performance for Paludis.
>> Could you please share more details on the experiment that showed this
>> kind of performance degradation and the numbers, if possible?
> 
> Shove an open and a getline in when doing what would otherwise be a
> successful cache read. It adds a couple of thousand new open()s on
> files that would otherwise be left alone, and changes the nice linear
> "slurp up things in this directory in order until we don't need
> anything else" pattern into "bounce backwards and forwards between lots
> of files in two different directories".
> 
> On a cold cache, which is the most common use case, this is very very
> nasty.
> 

I'm curious as to what operation in particular we're looking at.  Let's 
say I type in "paludis --sync":

Obviously the first step is to rsync the portage tree.  Then we find all 
modified files (already output by rsync) and update the caches.  We 
already need to fully parse every file to create a dependency tree, so 
why is it slow to cache the EAPI for each file while we're at it?

Next, suppose I type in "paludis -pi world":

Why wouldn't everything you need not already be in the cache?  And if 
something wasn't, then why is reading in the EAPI any slower than 
reading in (R)DEPEND/KEYWORDS/IUSE/etc?

What specific operation (from an end-user perspective) is improved by 
putting EAPI in the filename?  I'm not interested in theoretical 
operations like "given a portage tree, find the EAPI of every file" - 
users don't do those operations routinely in isolation, but as part of 
larger operations where doing an open and a getline now just speeds up 
the open and getline that would be executed 500 lines later anyway.

Again, I'm not completely opposed to the idea of putting EAPI in the 
filename, but I'm not convinced that the arguments in favor of it are as 
clear-cut as some are suggesting.  If everybody was open about the 
pros/cons of each solution and not suggesting that one solution is 
near-perfect and the others are total non-starters then this whole 
debate would probably be a whole lot less contentious.  When people 
perceive that somebody isn't honest about the shortcomings of their own 
proposal then they're less likely to trust them - it is just a human 
thing...
-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list