You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
#101 2011-03-23 13:07:55
- falconindy
- Developer
- From: New York, USA
- Registered: 2009-10-22
- Posts: 4,111
- Website
Re: Pacman Optimization - Part 2
I don't see a reason to use this anymore with 3.5. fragmentation is dramatically reduced on the sync DBs, and the local DB was never all that painful to search on to begin with. I've heard too many stories involving this script and some unfortunate accidents that lead to useless databases as well.
This script certainly has stood the test of time, though.
Last edited by falconindy (2011-03-23 13:12:48)
Offline
#102 2011-03-23 13:51:22
- Allan
- Pacman
- From: Brisbane, AU
- Registered: 2007-06-09
- Posts: 11,472
- Website
Re: Pacman Optimization - Part 2
This is definitely not needed for the sync databases anymore. The local database can still fragment, but not to the same extent as before due to having ~30% less files. But given the relative number of packages in the local db to the sync dbs, this will be far less noticeable. I doubt even pacman-optimize will be needed much anymore.
Offline
#103 2013-04-23 21:34:37
- algorythm
- Member
- From: /usr/share/zoneinfo/Europe/FIN
- Registered: 2009-07-17
- Posts: 181
Re: Pacman Optimization - Part 2
It's a decade old thread, but the people with decade old HDDs still clearly need it:
There is a difference for me and my 10 years old HDDs. Without cage 1st access can take >60s, with it's usually <10s.
[...] yeah, it does help on my system (although the speed gains aren't THAT dramatic). It shrinks the time down by about 15s.
Though, they'd de better off just using the package.
“Talent you can bloom. Instinct you can polish.” — Haikyuu!! (adapted)
“If everybody thought alike, no one would be thinking very much.” — Walter Lippmann (adapted)
“The important thing is to be able, at any moment, to sacrifice what we are for what we could become.” — Charles Dubois
Offline