| 1 |
On Mon, 2004-12-04 at 11:59 -0500, Andrew Gaffney wrote: |
| 2 |
> Todd Berman wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Mon, 2004-12-04 at 11:22 -0500, Andrew Gaffney wrote: |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> >>Troy Dack wrote: |
| 6 |
> >> |
| 7 |
> >>>Another point against a monolithic zip containing all the ebuilds (or |
| 8 |
> >>>even per directory zips) is the performance hit that slow machines would |
| 9 |
> >>>take, not everybody runs gentoo on a 2GHz plus machine (eg: my little |
| 10 |
> >>>PII-400 in the corner) |
| 11 |
> >> |
| 12 |
> >>Or my little P233 Thinkpad... |
| 13 |
> >> |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > And with the current setup of writing thousands of 1K files that little |
| 17 |
> > p233 thinkpad really flys i bet... |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> I'm not sure if that was supposed to be sarcastic, but yes, it does fly. It only takes |
| 20 |
> slightly longer to sync than my Athlon 1.3GHz desktop. The only part that takes forever is |
| 21 |
> updating the portage cache. That's why I just use a NFS shared portage tree from my |
| 22 |
> desktop machine now. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
In a way it was and in a way it wasn't. I honestly don't understand how |
| 25 |
you can explain to me that a compression-less zip file be any slower |
| 26 |
than the current setup. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
With compression I could understand, but without I don't think any speed |
| 29 |
difference would be noticeable. However, even with compression the |
| 30 |
operation should be fairly fast. zip is not like a tar.gz or tar.bz2, |
| 31 |
ie, you can read a file out of it and search through it fairly fast, and |
| 32 |
you don't have to uncompress the entire archive to get a single file. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
--Todd |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives