From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1RV0mR-0004b2-Ga for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 12:57:55 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B75A021C095; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 12:57:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-bw0-f53.google.com (mail-bw0-f53.google.com [209.85.214.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E7FC21C04F for ; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 12:57:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bkaq10 with SMTP id q10so10040886bka.40 for ; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 04:57:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=uEP8JBgG3JOt3pNuQgsDk93gs7sVMOjNJGr/xCsY63o=; b=eaS2kO0iLo1J9PvKpL7wHuU7WWVnIZOGRRLrWA+4XlmPVE/jzPVHlD9IVZEJ0/hwXm vTPhmdAfW7Fm7bXCiLoQvyB52jq+9+Ov1DxS/6/h5h5ELig/0dpfvwFQ+sTjjMujPqeB i8aIAPLllKERxsTZdgSTDxJVwLgWvQ9biygl8= Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.205.127.77 with SMTP id gz13mr31902642bkc.76.1322485020126; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 04:57:00 -0800 (PST) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.204.121.2 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 04:57:00 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20111128090608.5c75c6de@pomiocik.lan> References: <1d4ac47c28706094230cb2c4e6ee1c1c71629aa0.arfrever@gentoo> <20111126105822.GA37825@gentoo.org> <201111272329.02491.Arfrever@gentoo.org> <20111128090608.5c75c6de@pomiocik.lan> Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 07:57:00 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: vI6Nq79vbW4wVaMGMoa_ZOXZpys Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: proj/portage:master commit in: pym/portage/dbapi/ From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: arfrever@gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 56571f78-3602-467c-99d9-b267875320fe X-Archives-Hash: a9a190d87670b26ef6b2908d627bd0ed On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 3:06 AM, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny = wrote: > Have you considered time overhead of moving files in unnatural order? Rather than re-discuss this point it would probably be better for everybody to just read through the entire thread again, particularly Cirian's post and its follow-ups. My understanding is that the patch has already been reverted. Now, if somebody has a suggestion for how to sort the files in such a way as to improve the performance (assuming that it doesn't already happen in inode order) that would certainly take things forward. Sorting lists in RAM is cheap, disk seeks are expensive. Of course, if you're using tmpfs it is either all in RAM or in swap in the first place, and I'm not sure if swap brings in additional considerations here. Rich