Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 03:49:49 -0700 From: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com> To: Eivind Eklund <eivind@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com>, David Scheidt <dscheidt@enteract.com>, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: a two-level port system? (fwd) Message-ID: <10787.928406989@peewee> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 02 Jun 1999 17:35:28 %2B0200." <19990602173528.B70808@bitbox.follo.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> of useless. It's like doing uphill testing of a fat guy on a bicycle > against a Lamborghini - you "know" the result beforehand. Unfortunately, what you're probably not aware of is that the fat guy also has a JATO unit strapped to the back of his bicycle. Don't make assumptions. :-) > If extraction of the ports collection (not files in general, just the > ports collection) is slower using soft updates than using "async" > mode, then it seems some elevator sorting isn't working the way it Extraction of ALL the distribution bits is faster with async than it is with soft updates. To put it another, more practical, way - if you timed the installation with a stopwatch, with or without ports, the async policy would win and Kirk has even pointed that out in other emails. Given that, I have to honestly wonder why you've been arguing so strongly for soft updates being used in the installation. - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?10787.928406989>