On Tue, 2003-01-14 at 21:40, Alexander Hvostov wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-01-12 at 11:43, Otto Visser wrote:
> > On Sun, 2003-01-12 at 19:51, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2003-01-12 at 19:29, Alexander Hvostov wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2003-01-08 at 00:52, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 09:17:00PM +0100, Geert-Jan Hut wrote:
> > > > > > the system is reasonably fast. Dselect still uses about 10 seconds every time
> > > > > > I go to the 'select' screen, but otherwise it is very workable... I just
> > > > >
> > > > > That's not too bad, it takes nearly 5 on my 1.2 GHz Athlon machine!
> > > >
> > > > Just under 6 seconds here. Pentium II (Deschutes) @ 400 MHz (800
> > > > BogoMIPS), 384 MB RAM (66 MHz SDRAM), and an overwhelmingly cool
> > > > WD1200JB (120 GB, 8 MB buffer, ~8000 RPM, UDMA 33) hard drive. The
> > > > bottleneck appears to be the CPU, which maxes out while parsing
> > > > /var/lib/dpkg/*.
> > >
> > > If the CPU were the bottleneck, the Athlon should be much faster. I
> > > guess it's memory access, which would explain the roughly equal time for
> > > a machine with roughly a factor 3 difference in raw CPU speed (yes, I
> > > know the MHz don't really compare, but I'd say the difference is big
> > > enough here.)
> >
> > My memory (768 MB) is running at 133 MHz and it takes less then 3 secs
> > on my computer (1.44 MHz Celeron), so you could be true there. But that
> > would mean approx. 50 MB transfer? While /var/lib/dpkg/available is less
> > then 10 MB?
>
> 1.44 MHz? You mean GHz, don't you?
Er... happily I can say yes :) Typo... Probably suddenly saw the
similarity with a floppy I'd guess.
> When /var/lib/dpkg/{status,available} are parsed, perhaps the additional
> data produced is 40 MB in size. Wouldn't surprise me.
Does not sounds efficient, yet plausible indeed.
Otto.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part