Jeff Spaleta wrote:
I am sure it could be done that way, but you still would come across the bottleneck of the drive, in this case, so a lot of that performance would be idle waiting on the disks, unless you had your disks laid out by partition, something like / on sda1 /boot on sda2 /usr/local on sdb1 /usr/share on sdc1, /var on sdd1, etc. then you would have slightly less I/o wait unless your controller didn't like writing to multiple buses at once (some crappy SATA hardware has this problem, like the Lanparty 3200 board from DFI) or old IDE.On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 1:37 PM, Seann Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:And on an honest note, I don't really see how package management would require more CPU power, when as a database type program, it would require faster disks to perform better, not more power from the CPU.Couldn't dependency resolution for multiple packages be done psuedo-parallel when doing updates or installs? -jef
~Seann
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
-- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
