[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Gnu-arch-users] Re: implicit discussion

From: Martin Pool
Subject: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: implicit discussion
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 09:31:09 +1000
User-agent: Mutt/

On 16 Apr 2004, Miles Bader <address@hidden> wrote:
> Johannes Berg <address@hidden> writes:
> > Bah. I hate it when people say that. For the record, I'm doing all
> > development (even tla/win32) on a box with 20GB. This stuff is a
> > significant overhead for me, especially if I want to use a revision
> > library (and really, I need to, pristines even larger)

Another problem is that the ids probably also occupy ~68MB of buffer
cache, reducing the chance that you can keep the tree entirely in RAM.

A built 2.6 kernel tree is now larger than the whole disk I had only a
few years ago.

(I just realized that you could use configs to make an arch checkout
of the kernel much smaller than a regular one, by excluding the
directories you're not going to use.)

I'm not trying to be glib, but I think disk space is not the globally
most pressing optimization, although it may be for some people.
People with limited resources or outside of the US may be more likely
to suffer from slow links than lack of disk.  I can donate an old 7GB
disk to someone less fortunate, but I can't post them a DSL

For what it's worth a tla checkout is probably at least somewhat
smaller than a Svn checkout (since their pristines can't be linked)
and much smaller than a bk replica.

To bring something practical out of this: perhaps we should add "saves
disk space" as a reason to use taglines.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]