Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 07:23:17 -0600 (MDT) From: Atipa <freebsd@atipa.com> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> Cc: "Justin M. Seger" <jseger@freebsd.scds.com>, ports@FreeBSD.ORG, asami@cs.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: Size of a port... Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980616065354.14521A-100000@altrox.atipa.com> In-Reply-To: <4693.897983741@time.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 16 Jun 1998, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > > Speaking of sizes and ports, is anyone else totally sick of the ungodly > > number of files in /usr/ports? It to me is absolutely disgusting. It takes > > several minutes to to any type of "find" in /usr because of them. > > Then don't run your find in /usr/ports. :-) Well, what about "du -k" then? It still to me is a kuldge. You know the I/O is way too bound when untarring the ports can only be done at 15kb/sec when sysinstalling via 100MBit/sec ethernet on a P2-400. > I hope you'll pardon me for saying so, but this has got to be one of > the stupidest posts I've ever read and rivals the "it has too many > notes!" scene in Amadeus. Actually, this is one of my pet peeves, probably to an irrational level. Those ports maintiners are just too damn good! Try this: % time ls -R /usr/ports | wc -l (standard input) time: command terminated abnormally 143.24 real 1.02 user 4.30 sys That was on a P-166 IDE disks 2.2.5-RELEASE. On a Pro-200-512k w/ 256M RAM and 7200RPM disks, it did: % time ls -R /usr/ports | wc -l 60693 real 2m26.05s user 0m1.241s sys 0m3.95s And you think I am crazy? Sheesh. Sixty thousand inodes is not excessive, when about only 1300 are needed? It took 2.5 minutes just to do a damn ls -R on that tree. du, find, etc., are all very slow because of the current structure. > I can only hope that the fine folks at > Atipa are just having a Really Bad Day and will send a follow-up > posting shorting admitting that Kevin probably should have been kept > away from the keyboard after 5:00pm and simply gotten dead drunk > instead. :-) Well, I may have been a bit loopy, but not off my rocker. Hopefully softupdates will help out, but that won't really cahnge the problem. > The ports collection has a very deliberate design with many advantages > if one actually understands it (and few do, with many more only > thinking that they do :), and its layout is neither disgusting nor > ridiculous. It is now time for Kevin to go lie down. :-) I can see several advantages, but none that _require_ that layout. For instance, CVS-ability, indexing, describing, patching, building, etc., could all be maintined by a "ports" command and about 4 or 5 files external to the .tgz files for each port. If I am crazy, try looking at the number of files generated when a SQL server maintains 60,000 records. Probably about 3. Am I making any sense? I have yet to drink my coffee... :) Kevin To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.980616065354.14521A-100000>