| 1 |
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:16:39 -0500 Jerry McBride |
| 2 |
<mcbrides9@×××××××.net> wrote: |
| 3 |
| > Wrong solution. You do realise that the "updating Portage cache" |
| 4 |
| > thing is due to a Portage deficiency, |
| 5 |
| |
| 6 |
| "Portage deficency"? You mean the fact that python scans some |
| 7 |
| thousands of files in the file based database, writing as it goes? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Nope. The fact that Portage uses that second level of cache at all. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
| > and that the real cache is centrally generated, right? |
| 12 |
| |
| 13 |
| Yup, from thousands of files in the file based database... |
| 14 |
| |
| 15 |
| Portage is a wonderful tool for package management, but the sheer |
| 16 |
| size of the beast begs for movig it to C and a proper database. I |
| 17 |
| remember in the early days of my gentoo experience that portage |
| 18 |
| wasn't a bother. But as ebuilds are added to portage and my choice of |
| 19 |
| installed ebuilds grows... portage has become quite a slug |
| 20 |
| performance wise. I guess this is where the IT types step in and say |
| 21 |
| it scales poorly. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
The scalability issues have nothing to do with us using files. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (I can kill you with my brain) |
| 27 |
Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org |
| 28 |
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm |
Archives