[Scons-users] cache directory structure

[Brian Cody]

Hey folks, as an SCons cache user here's our two cents:

More directories at the top (or a second level) won't do us any harm. We're
using an NTFS share today and I'm not aware of its limitations. If an SCons
upgrade changes the structure and we lose the cache, that's okay. The
upgrades are infrequent enough and our cache is disposable.

Thanks
On Jan 27, 2016 14:59, "Bill Deegan" <bill at baddogconsulting.com> wrote:

> Interesting.
> Would SCons then need to have a migration path for the cached files?
> That shouldn't be too hard right?
>
> -Bill
>
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 8:33 AM, William Blevins <wblevins001 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> As a user, I think this is reasonable; I cannot imagine as software
>> assumptions that would make this change detrimental. I don't see it being a
>> high priority bug issue though since it's probably an enhancement at best.
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Tom Tanner (BLOOMBERG/ LONDON) <
>> ttanner2 at bloomberg.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I've been poking around in our system and it seems to me that for us at
>>> least, given we have around 23,000 files in each cache directory, which
>>> cripples ls, whether or not it might be better for scons to have 256 cache
>>> directories rather than the current 16 (00-FF rather than 0-F), as it might
>>> stress the O/S less (especially if the underlying filer is a bit slow. and
>>> yes, NFS does come into the equation here).
>>>
>>> Is this a reasonable change to make? Does anyone have any opinions /
>>> feelings / contrary evidence?
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Scons-users mailing list
>>> Scons-users at scons.org
>>> https://pairlist4.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-users
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Scons-users mailing list
>> Scons-users at scons.org
>> https://pairlist4.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-users
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Scons-users mailing list
> Scons-users at scons.org
> https://pairlist4.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-users
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist4.pair.net/pipermail/scons-users/attachments/20160127/234993eb/attachment-0001.html>