1 |
On Wednesday 28 December 2005 11:33, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
2 |
> On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 11:22:07 -0500 Jerry McBride |
3 |
> |
4 |
> <mcbrides9@×××××××.net> wrote: |
5 |
> | All the gentoo systems that I admin show the same slow down at about |
6 |
> | 51%. I dearly wish we'd get away from a file based database. And |
7 |
> | before everyone jumps on me about the various database backend |
8 |
> | patches that I can apply to get what I cry for... I've tried them... |
9 |
> | None of them put "all the data" into a real database... A shame |
10 |
> | too.... |
11 |
> |
12 |
> Wrong solution. You do realise that the "updating Portage cache" thing |
13 |
> is due to a Portage deficiency, |
14 |
|
15 |
"Portage deficency"? You mean the fact that python scans some thousands of |
16 |
files in the file based database, writing as it goes? |
17 |
|
18 |
> and that the real cache is centrally generated, right? |
19 |
|
20 |
Yup, from thousands of files in the file based database... |
21 |
|
22 |
Portage is a wonderful tool for package management, but the sheer size of the |
23 |
beast begs for movig it to C and a proper database. I remember in the early |
24 |
days of my gentoo experience that portage wasn't a bother. But as ebuilds are |
25 |
added to portage and my choice of installed ebuilds grows... portage has |
26 |
become quite a slug performance wise. I guess this is where the IT types step |
27 |
in and say it scales poorly. |
28 |
|
29 |
Cheers all and Happy New Year to everyone. |
30 |
|
31 |
|
32 |
Jerry |
33 |
|
34 |
-- |
35 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |