Gentoo Archives: gentoo-server

From: stephen white <steve@×××××××××××××××.au>
To: gentoo-server@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-server] Re: Re: requirements for a more stable portage tree
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 06:09:54
Message-Id: 44A96FCA-62A2-11D8-A0B1-000393B7D972@cs.adelaide.edu.au
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-server] Re: Re: requirements for a more stable portage tree by Kevin O'Shea
1 On 19/02/2004, at 4:24 PM, Kevin O'Shea wrote:
2 > What about some non-daemoned SQL db, such as SQLite? Surely not near
3 > as
4 > fast as MySQL or PostgreSQL, but more reasonable. A lot of users are
5 > not
6 > going to want to run a SQL server all the time on every box.
7
8 Performance problems don't always need databases as the answer.
9
10 The current portage hierarchy contains a huge number of little files
11 with correlated data scattered all over the place.
12
13 Enormous speedups could be gained simply by rearranging related data
14 while still using flat files.
15
16 --
17 steve@×××××××××××××××.au
18
19 CRICOS Provider Number 00123M
20 ------------------------------------------------
21 This email message is intended only for the addressee(s)
22 and contains information that may be confidential and/or
23 copyright. If you are not the intended recipient please
24 notify the sender by reply email and immediately delete
25 this email. Use, disclosure or reproduction of this email
26 by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly
27 prohibited. No representation is made that this email or
28 any attachments are free of viruses. Virus scanning is
29 recommended and is the responsibility of the recipient.

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-server] requirements for a more stable portage tree Eric Sammer <esammer@g.o>
[gentoo-server] portage sync -> partial ? Martin Hajduch <martin.hajduch@×××××××××××.com>