Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Raphael <raphael.melo21@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Python vs C++ [was: Gentoo Rules]
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:44:07
Message-Id: 8f7a9d580712170538ye5f0b42q41ab171f551223d4@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-user] Python vs C++ [was: Gentoo Rules] by "Hemmann
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

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-user] Python vs C++ [was: Gentoo Rules] "Hemmann
Re: [gentoo-user] Python vs C++ [was: Gentoo Rules] "Bo Ørsted Andresen" <bo.andresen@××××.dk>
[gentoo-user] Re: Python vs C++ [was: Gentoo Rules] Thufir <hawat.thufir@×××××.com>