[Scons-users] cache directory structure

[Gary Oberbrunner]

This change makes sense to me. Rename script would be nice, for those users
with giant expensive caches.

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 9:31 AM, Tom Tanner (BLOOMBERG/ LONDON) <
ttanner2 at bloomberg.net> wrote:

> 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 listScons-users at scons.orghttps://pairlist4.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-users
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Scons-users mailing list
> Scons-users at scons.org
> https://pairlist4.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-users
>
>


-- 
Gary
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist4.pair.net/pipermail/scons-users/attachments/20160127/e7cc99d1/attachment.html>