| 1 |
On 07/08/2018 02:15 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> Dnia 8 lipca 2018 09:14:06 CEST, Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> napisał(a): |
| 3 |
>> On 07/07/2018 11:53 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> Dnia 8 lipca 2018 08:08:31 CEST, Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> |
| 5 |
>> napisał(a): |
| 6 |
>>>> Please review. |
| 7 |
>>>> |
| 8 |
>>>> Title: Portage rsync hardlink support |
| 9 |
>>>> Author: Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> |
| 10 |
>>>> Posted: 2018-07-11 |
| 11 |
>>>> Revision: 1 |
| 12 |
>>>> News-Item-Format: 2.0 |
| 13 |
>>>> Display-If-Installed: sys-apps/portage |
| 14 |
>>>> |
| 15 |
>>>> For users of the rsync tree, beginning with sys-apps/portage-2.3.42, |
| 16 |
>>>> the default behavior for sync operations will use hardlinks in order |
| 17 |
>>>> to ensure that a repository remains in a valid state if something |
| 18 |
>>>> goes wrong [1]. For example, if signature verification fails during |
| 19 |
>> a |
| 20 |
>>>> sync operation, the new hardlink behavior will preserve the previous |
| 21 |
>>>> state of the repository. |
| 22 |
>>>> |
| 23 |
>>>> The new behavior may conflict with configurations that restrict the |
| 24 |
>>>> use of hardlinks, such as overlay filesystems. Therefore, users will |
| 25 |
>>>> have to set "sync-allow-hardlinks = no" in repos.conf if they have |
| 26 |
>>>> a configuration that restricts the use of hardlinks, but this should |
| 27 |
>>>> not be very common: |
| 28 |
>>>> |
| 29 |
>>>> [DEFAULT] |
| 30 |
>>>> sync-allow-hardlinks = no |
| 31 |
>>>> |
| 32 |
>>>> [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/660410 sys-apps/portage: use rsync |
| 33 |
>>>> --link-dest to implement atomic repository updates (and abort if |
| 34 |
>>>> signature verification fails) |
| 35 |
>>> |
| 36 |
>>> Is safe git syncing implemented already? If not, maybe finish it |
| 37 |
>> first and cover both with a single news item. Git is going to be more |
| 38 |
>> efficient here, so people may want to learn they have an alternative. |
| 39 |
>> |
| 40 |
>> Yeah there's already a patch for git sync [1] but I'd rather not make |
| 41 |
>> this news item more complicated than it needs to be. I wouldn't have |
| 42 |
>> bothered with a news item except that I want to give people some |
| 43 |
>> warning |
| 44 |
>> in case they are using overlayfs [2]. I think the efficiency difference |
| 45 |
>> between rsync and git here are pretty negligible for most people. |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
> Are you sure about that? That might have been the case so far but this hardlink tree may actually tip the balance. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
Even if it takes twice a long (which it doesn't), the difference is |
| 50 |
negligible for most people because they usually don't sync more than |
| 51 |
once per day. |
| 52 |
-- |
| 53 |
Thanks, |
| 54 |
Zac |
Archives