Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: patches.gentoo.org

[Xavier Neys]

Kurt Lieber wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 04:16:53PM +0100 or thereabouts, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
>>It is a fact that a lot of users are complaining. A quick glance back
>>through the threads on this list (or for that matter on the forums) over
>>the past few weeks shows this.
>
> OK, then it's also a fact that the proposed solution (patches.gentoo.org)
> is unlikely to solve these complaints as it won't make much of a difference
> in tree size.
>
> I also question whether "a lot" is accurate.  Perhaps, "a few very vocal"
> users might be more accurate.

How many are "a few" and how much vocal is "very" vocal?
The fact is there are more users complaining about this than there were a year 
before.
We can let this trend grow or see if anything can be done about it.

I doubt cleaning up the tree a bit would increase performance significantly.
Cleaning up is neat but it might not be worth the effort unless it can be 
significantly cleaned up, as far as improving the performance of emerge --sync 
is concerned.

I compiled some timings here:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~neysx/tests/emerge--sync.html

It looks like the 'metadata' step is taking up half of the time spent when 
running emerge --sync. It is usually more, sometimes much more.
Maybe something could be improved there.
Don't hit me, I know I don't know the code.
In the best of all cases I have tried, running emerge --sync against an 
up-to-date tree from which all 25,000+ /files/* had been removed, took 130 
seconds, 5 seconds to sync, 125 seconds to find out nothing had to be changed 
in the cache.
Hint: use rsync output to update the cache.

If you feel this is heresy, or mere noise, just ignore my ignorance.


Regards,
-- 
/  Xavier Neys
\_ Gentoo Documentation Project
/  French & Internationalisation Lead
\  http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en
/\