| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 4:54 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
A database is definitely the way forward; usually db files are under /var anyhow.
As for not d/ling ebuilds, I totally agree. It'd also make it simpler for the user to keep ebuilds of installed software. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Lloeki
Guru
Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 437
Location: France
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | As for not d/ling ebuilds, I totally agree |
I don't, because that way I can modify ebuilds that don't fit my needs, and I can e.g install software when offline.
not downloading ebuilds would give an unnecessarily complex system.
as for the supposed b/w economy, it is already economized by rsync, which transfers only the necessary data, and it can be further increased by setting up a local rsync mirror. this kind of economy could not be done otherwise.
plus you are not required to sync the whole tree. see /etc/portage/rsync_excludes.
btw, the topic is about where things are stored, not how they are.
_________________
Moved to using Arch Linux
Life is meant to be lived, not given up...
HOLY COW I'M TOTALLY GOING SO FAST OH F***  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Genone
Retired Dev
Joined: 14 Mar 2003
Posts: 9611
Location: beyond the rim
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And the implementation is where?
People are saying that using a "database" (I assume they refer to a RDBMS there) make things magically fast for years, but where are the super fast implementations? Or is it maybe that a RDBMS doesn't make things magically fast unless you adjust your data model and access patterns accordingly?
I'm not saying that the Fs based solution is the only true way, but those statement of "just use a database to make stuff faster/better" (with no actual reasearch being done) are getting quite annoying over time.
And starting a discussion about storage backends would be getting quite off-topic here IMO.
PS: not every file in the tree is an ebuild, there are "only" about 20k-25k ebuild in the tree. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
i92guboj
Bodhisattva
Joined: 30 Nov 2004
Posts: 10315
Location: Córdoba (Spain)
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| madchaz wrote: | Personally, if we want to go thought a significant upgrade, moving the tree wouldn't really be the way to go I'd like to see.
Right now, using a FS tree is becoming more and more of an issue. It creates a structure with over 100 000 ebuilds in it and makes for a lot of load when it comes to updating.
What I'd like to see is a move away from the FS tree entirely and on to something saner, like a database. This could make searching a LOT faster and reduce the load for updating portage.
|
That has been debated to death, and has nothing to do with the scope of this thread, in my opinion. There are already a lot of threads on the line of "why not a db instead fs?" or "why not <insert C/C++ here> instead of python?". No need to clone those debates again, you can talk about that in any of those other threads. This one is about a simple change to fit into the FHS standard, that, even if you do not like, is the standard that rules for now.
Not to say that some ideas are not interesting, but certainly, all that has been already discussed in many other places in the past, and is not going to happen in gentoo. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Insanity5902
Veteran
Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 1228
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 7:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Genone wrote: | | PS: not every file in the tree is an ebuild, there are "only" about 20k-25k ebuild in the tree. |
approx 23878 to be a bit more exact 
_________________
Join the adopt an unanswered post initiative today |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 7:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Genone wrote: | | PS: not every file in the tree is an ebuild, there are "only" about 20k-25k ebuild in the tree. |
Really? I didn't realise it was so little. No problem then
As for a db, I don't have an issue with the filesystem for ebuilds; it's more that I think a database of metadata for what's installed could be useful. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bmichaelsen
Veteran
Joined: 17 Nov 2002
Posts: 1277
Location: Hamburg, Germany
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 10:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 6thpink wrote: | | That has been debated to death, and has nothing to do with the scope of this thread, in my opinion. |
Right. Having a RDBMS would be nice, when the data model is optimized accordingly, but that more or less comes down to a big redesign in portagedb bordering a complete rewrite. Thats a whole different scope.
However just moving the default destination of the tree to /var now and symlinking from /usr shouldnt be too hard. Actually it would be pretty easy. So how about writing a GLEP? Or is there even one already? *digs trough exsisting GLEPs* |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Gentoo Chat
