tmpfs (Re: Why not move Apt to a relational database)
On 2007-06-09, Bastian Blank <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 09, 2007 at 02:52:04AM +0000, Oleg Verych wrote:
>> > Based on a relational database it will run faster,
>> First reason is "faster". What if i'll say: based on tmpfs and
>> directory/file structure it will run even faster?
> tmpfs is not faster than a real disk. You need the memory anyway and the
> data on a real disk should be in the cache anyway if possible.
First startup is. But after that, tmpfs will go to swap and unless
swap is as fragmented as hdd, and not all parts of db will be needed
immediately, next startup will be far more faster. Even if swap
version will be not plausible, "untar" can run with "apt-get update",
"apt-get upgrade" (sometimes very slow) *downloads* in _parallel_, thus
db will be ready and in memory, before it will start to further
>> > so that if the database is stored on another computer and first
>> > computer has a hardware failure, the data from the backup can be used
>> > to completely restore the computer to its status again.
>> clients on failed machine: scp, curl, lftp, whatever to transfer a file
> Most db formats are not transfer formats and are incompatible between
> different versions and architectures. You need to dump them for such
> sort of backup.
I've described tar (ar, cpio,etc.) file as storage, i doubt if it has