| 1 |
On Wednesday 28 December 2005 11:33, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 11:22:07 -0500 Jerry McBride |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> <mcbrides9@×××××××.net> wrote: |
| 5 |
> | All the gentoo systems that I admin show the same slow down at about |
| 6 |
> | 51%. I dearly wish we'd get away from a file based database. And |
| 7 |
> | before everyone jumps on me about the various database backend |
| 8 |
> | patches that I can apply to get what I cry for... I've tried them... |
| 9 |
> | None of them put "all the data" into a real database... A shame |
| 10 |
> | too.... |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Wrong solution. You do realise that the "updating Portage cache" thing |
| 13 |
> is due to a Portage deficiency, |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
"Portage deficency"? You mean the fact that python scans some thousands of |
| 16 |
files in the file based database, writing as it goes? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> and that the real cache is centrally generated, right? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Yup, from thousands of files in the file based database... |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Portage is a wonderful tool for package management, but the sheer size of the |
| 23 |
beast begs for movig it to C and a proper database. I remember in the early |
| 24 |
days of my gentoo experience that portage wasn't a bother. But as ebuilds are |
| 25 |
added to portage and my choice of installed ebuilds grows... portage has |
| 26 |
become quite a slug performance wise. I guess this is where the IT types step |
| 27 |
in and say it scales poorly. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Cheers all and Happy New Year to everyone. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Jerry |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives