On 1/28/21 12:05 PM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
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.
Maybe a big installation, but just a laptop.
rpm -qalv|grep -v ^d|wc -l
is giving 1652583 files (excluding dirs)
and
rpmdb --rebuilddb && du /var/lib/rpm
is giving 442MB.
The extra size would be 162*1652583 = 267MB, which amounts to +60%.
Regards.
--
Roberto Ragusa mail at robertoragusa.it