[Scons-users] cache directory structure

[Tom Tanner (BLOOMBERG/ LONDON)]

well, the migration path *could* be to check both but that'd be a performance killer. Or a rename script could be provided. Or if your cache was updated in a controlled way (which ours is) you probably wouldn't worry as people using the old version of the scripts would be using the old places for the cached files, and people using the new version of the scripts would find a pre-populated cache. Or possibly this could be selected on a command line switch


From: scons-users at scons.org At: Jan 27 2016 14:12:05
To: scons-users at scons.org
Subject: Re: [Scons-users] cache directory structure


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


         _______________________________________________
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/20160127/44ff4e22/attachment.html>