From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21445 invoked from network); 13 Jun 2004 16:18:15 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 13 Jun 2004 16:18:15 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BZXgT-0002i4-9y for arch-gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Sun, 13 Jun 2004 16:18:13 +0000 Received: (qmail 27091 invoked by uid 89); 13 Jun 2004 16:18:12 +0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-portage-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail Reply-To: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 9201 invoked from network); 13 Jun 2004 16:18:12 +0000 Message-ID: <40CC7E30.501@charlies-server.no-ip.com> Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 11:17:52 -0500 From: Hasan Khalil User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.6 (Macintosh/20040502) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <40CA20FD.8040907@wanadoo.fr> <1087001708.28752.28.camel@newkid.milsson.nu> <40CAC668.6020100@wanadoo.fr> <33656.68.78.45.223.1087079154.squirrel@webmail.neoturbine.net> <40CC2222.2040304@wanadoo.fr> In-Reply-To: <40CC2222.2040304@wanadoo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] portage doc & cache X-Archives-Salt: 9d2a67a5-a6a0-4bf3-8126-8d8640d045e6 X-Archives-Hash: 9bcec1cc05796bf890494002ae0d3bd7 Perhaps using a mysql-based cache would give more benefits than meets the eye? I'm thinking particularly about, if it were possible, keeping a mysql-based cache on a central server on my LAN, and having all clients use that rather than having to keep a cache on each and every one of them. This would also speed up cache times on slower machines, assuming the network is faster than local access (which is sometimes the case in my environment). Just a thought. -Hasan Philippe Lafoucrière wrote: > >> For someone like me using mysql-based cache rather then portage's default >> cache, how will that figure? > > > I have a laptop with 256 MB RAM. I can't consider installing a full > database system to handle package managment. Maybe SQLlite, but not > mysql :( > > >>> There are too many files to consider now in portage. At start, portage >>> had just a few hundred of files, and rsync was doing its job quite well. >>> Now portage has more than 80 000 files. Rsync has to consider all of >>> them, and it's *REALLY* too long + painfull (my laptop is almost >>> unusable during rsyncing). Sound like a "select * from table" on a test >>> server with 15 test clients => will break in production environnement >>> with thousands of clients. >> >> >> >> I have a 900mhz celeron (copermine), and maybe its the love-sources and >> ~x86 packages, but ive still been able to do crazy things like talk on >> irc, have firefox open, update some programs, all while 'emerge sync'-ing >> without too much preformance lost* (now if i forget to turn off >> seti@home.....then my computer will simply lockup untill i can get to a >> tty). You might want to check out if theres something with your >> laptop, if >> these extremly long times happen with other equpiment. >> >> * I should mention i emerge sync every one or two days. > > > Rsync doesn't work with the corporate proxy + firewall. I have to use > emerge-webrsync (ev. 2 or 3 days). > > -- > gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list > -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list