| 1 |
On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Doug Goldstein <cardoe@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> You realize that files are cached in RAM right? |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Yes, I know how operating systems work. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> More than likely those pages are always in cache. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Did you read my reply at all? You are assuming ideal conditions |
| 9 |
(enough free RAM), for a specific kind of desktop (low seek time for |
| 10 |
root filesystem is one assumption), where the solution you are relying |
| 11 |
upon is a generic one, and will fail under high load. I prefer |
| 12 |
removing potential problems instead of relying on optimal behavior and |
| 13 |
having to figure what went wrong down the road. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> The time required to parse |
| 16 |
> the average GNOME single user desktop machine (I've got 44 users and |
| 17 |
> 69 groups on that box) is likely smaller than the overhead of a DB. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
No, since the DB can have frequent pages locked into memory. Should I |
| 20 |
also ask: “you realize that not all DBs are MySQL and Oracle, right”? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I think this branch of discussion became pretty off-topic, so I |
| 23 |
suggest stopping it. I just wanted people to know about the optional |
| 24 |
glibc database functionality, which is a nice alternative for those of |
| 25 |
us that are used to nscd with NIS+, and which doesn't work at the |
| 26 |
moment (so maybe someone feels like figuring it out on the glibc bug |
| 27 |
opened by vapier). I certainly have no desire to read condescending |
| 28 |
replies. If I wanted a flamewar, I would have probably mentioned that |
| 29 |
glibc uses /var/db for the database, which is not FHS-compliant. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Maxim Kammerer |
| 33 |
Liberté Linux: http://dee.su/liberte |
Archives