1 |
Hi everyone, |
2 |
|
3 |
I don't think the programming language is the problem here. The |
4 |
problem is that some of Portage architectural decisions have a |
5 |
negative impact on performance. Probably because the developers were |
6 |
focused on minimizing dependencies (i.e. file system based |
7 |
persistence) and bandwidth consumption (i.e. using rsync for updating |
8 |
packages). |
9 |
|
10 |
So, even if Portage was recoded in C++, performance improvements |
11 |
would be marginal and the cost in man-hours would be too high. It |
12 |
would take months before reaching the maturity level Portage has now |
13 |
and all this time could be better spent trying to find solutions to |
14 |
its architectural bottlenecks. |
15 |
|
16 |
I believe that a good solution would be evolving Portage to use |
17 |
different forms of storage, like databases or even LDAP. In a home |
18 |
desktop, you could use SQLite, which is light weight. In a Office |
19 |
enviroment, you could use a larger database, like MySQL or PostgreSQL. |
20 |
In this second case, it would even make sharing the package list |
21 |
faster, since the only current method is sharing it over NFS. |
22 |
|
23 |
I understand that doing so could bloat Portage dependencies, but |
24 |
it is, IMHO, a good way to improve its speed. |
25 |
|
26 |
Regards, |
27 |
|
28 |
Raphael |
29 |
-- |
30 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |