Gentoo Archives: gentoo-performance

From: Eldad Zack <eldad@××××××××××××××.cx>
To: gentoo-performance@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-performance] portage database layer [Was: Testing, testing...]
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 12:35:12
Message-Id: 1081254764.6530.12.camel@localhost
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-performance] Re: Testing, testing... by Chris Smith
On Tue, 2004-04-06 at 14:13, Chris Smith wrote:
> On Tuesday 06 April 2004 11:57, Jerry McBride wrote: > > Nicholas wrote: > > > Ok, This week's project is to test Gentoo's performance... > > > > How about a "performance wish list" ? > > > > 1 - Migrate emerge from python to C. > > 2 - Use a real database for portage instead of a filesystem > > 3 - .... > But seriously, folks. Number 2 I can see having good points feature-wise, but > not performance. Same with number 1.
Well, it did occur to me, that it would be very useful virtualizing the database layer, so that we can use whatever database we want to choose. If that's a filesystem based, or a real database, or a REMOTE database. A remote database would allow managing a horde of gentoo installations much easier. It would open up a possiblity of writing a tracker to handle security updates, and packages checking on a least-change-welcomed corp enviornments. This tracker will have to check only one database. Of course, you can do it right now, only you will have to sync the database after every change, or have the tracker poll every host (which is abit of the sub-optimal side). This isn't really "performance", though. -- gentoo-performance@g.o mailing list


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-performance] portage database layer [Was: Testing, testing...] Patrick <patrick@××××××××××.za>