On 1/28/21 12:21 PM, Roberto Ragusa wrote:
On 1/28/21 9:34 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On 1/27/21 8:30 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> SO, I don't really understand... Patrick says in the Change:
>>
>> "The size of the rpmdb increases from 22952 to 28416 bytes, a 20%
>> increase. This is on an install size of 1.7GB in total, so this 5MB
>> increase is a 0.3% size increase on the final installed system."
>>
>> Is that just because he used the server install with fewer files?
>
> As directories are not signed, in a smaller installation the directory
> vs file ratio could be different, making the overhead smaller than in
> a larger install. Looking at the F33 server edition install, there are
> 59246 files total, 22837 of which are directories. That's a very
> different ratio to my laptop install where there are 402158 files
> total of which 70874 are directories.
>
> So it's a case of "it depends" and it depends quite a lot. By no means
> the overhead is always 45% but neither is it always 20% - depending on
> the exact package set it can be even be quite a bit more or less than
> either figure.
My data point: I have 1864399 files in rpm DB (rpm -qla|wc -l).
That'd be the total number of file entries, including directories. To
exclude directories, try
rpm -qalv|grep -v ^d|wc -l
The rpm database is 770MB (du /var/lib/rpm).
For statistics, you might want to compact the db first:
rpmdb --rebuilddb
Although that clearly is one *big* installation so dunno how much air
there might be (or not) in that number.
- Panu -