Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 09:20:21 +0200 From: gareth <bsd@lordcow.org> To: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: portsdb Message-ID: <20060512072021.GA22237@lordcow.org> In-Reply-To: <446206DF.7020607@alumni.rice.edu> References: <20060510073107.GA19897@lordcow.org> <20060510102222.GA25464@lordcow.org> <446206DF.7020607@alumni.rice.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed 2006-05-10 (11:29), Jonathan Noack wrote: > You are probably experiencing some of the VFS limitations in 5.3 (you'll > be pleasantly surprised by 6.1!). "portsdb -Uu" is very CPU and IO > intensive; it takes a long time on a fast machine. "make fetchindex" is > provided as a replacement for having to run "portsdb -Uu". The only > downside is that the downloaded INDEX-5.db may be a few hours out of date. it looks like 'make fetchindex' only gets INDEX-5.bz2, then unzips it, then i need to make a INDEX-5.db. anyway, 'portsdb -Uu' may be CPU/IO intensive, but that alone shouldn't be powering down the machine? > > but, if i just run portversion, it creates the INDEX-5.db, > > so i'm not sure why i'm running 'portsdb -Uu' in the first > > place? > > I would highly recommend checking out portsnap; it builds an up-to-date > INDEX-5.db file automatically as part of the update process. so what is 'portversion' building, that is different to what 'portsdb -Uu' would do? thanx re portsnap, will have a look but can't at the moment.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060512072021.GA22237>