> On Jan 12, 2016, at 6:39 PM, Tim Mooney wrote:
>
> In regard to: Re: RPM sqlite3 support, Jeffrey Johnson said (at 4:40pm on...:
>
>>> With Oracle's license change on BDB 6.x (or 12.x, or whatever they're
>>> calling it) to AGPL, does that impact rpm5's long-term use of
> On Jan 12, 2016, at 11:25 AM, Jate Sujjavanich wrote:
>
> I am using rpm 5.4.9 as my package manager on an embedded system, and I am
> running into some bottlenecks with the Berkeley database. I am using an SD
> Card as my root file system.
>
> The rpm transactions from
> On Jan 12, 2016, at 3:06 PM, Tim Mooney wrote:
>
> In regard to: Re: RPM sqlite3 support, Jeffrey Johnson said (at 12:46pm on...:
>
>> The sqlite3 code (and support) in rpm5 was abandoned in favor of
>> Berkeley DB ACID transactional support quite some years ago
>
>
Performance was my whole rationale for trying sqlite3.
I do have some power backup, so I will try reducing the fsyncs.
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Mark Hatle
wrote:
>
> Note, sqlite support was -much- slower then BerkeleyDB. It was only added
> to
> deal with
On 1/12/16 10:25 AM, Jate Sujjavanich wrote:
> I am using rpm 5.4.9 as my package manager on an embedded system, and I am
> running into some bottlenecks with the Berkeley database. I am using an SD
> Card
> as my root file system.
>
> The rpm transactions from a kernel upgrade take an hour or
In regard to: Re: RPM sqlite3 support, Jeffrey Johnson said (at 12:46pm on...:
The sqlite3 code (and support) in rpm5 was abandoned in favor of
Berkeley DB ACID transactional support quite some years ago
I've been meaning to ask about this for a while, and this provides a
good segue...
With
On 1/12/16 2:06 PM, Tim Mooney wrote:
> In regard to: Re: RPM sqlite3 support, Jeffrey Johnson said (at 12:46pm on...:
>
>> The sqlite3 code (and support) in rpm5 was abandoned in favor of
>> Berkeley DB ACID transactional support quite some years ago
>
> I've been meaning to ask about this for
In regard to: Re: RPM sqlite3 support, Jeffrey Johnson said (at 4:40pm on...:
With Oracle's license change on BDB 6.x (or 12.x, or whatever they're
calling it) to AGPL, does that impact rpm5's long-term use of BDB?
No impact for the project, but there’s always users who want/need different.
I am using rpm 5.4.9 as my package manager on an embedded system, and I am
running into some bottlenecks with the Berkeley database. I am using an SD
Card as my root file system.
The rpm transactions from a kernel upgrade take an hour or so. Using the
--stats option, I found that rpm was spending