On Tuesday 30 November 2004 05:58, Kent Stewart wrote: > On Monday 29 November 2004 09:40 pm, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 11:27:47PM -0600, Conrad J. Sabatier wrote: > > > On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 19:57:34 -0800, Kris Kennaway > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 10:48:29PM -0500, dave wrote: > > > > > Hello, > > > > > I've got a box that runs portupgrade to keep the most > > > > > current ports. > > > > > I've lately switched to make fetchindex vs. portsdb -uU which > > > > > goes much faster. My problem is whenever i do a make search for > > > > > a port the index.5 file is regenerated and that takes an > > > > > extremely long time. I was wondering if this is normal > > > > > behavior, and what if anything i could do to speed it up? > > > > > > > > make fetchindex > > > > > > > > Kris > > > > > > You can also increase the concurrency of "portsdb -U"/"make index" > > > by setting INDEX_JOBS in /etc/make.conf. The default number of > > > parallel jobs is 2. Increasing this to, say, 8, will save some > > > time in building the index. > > > > In my testing 4 helped on a dual SMP machine but 8 didn't, because > > the process was I/O bound already at 4. > > There isn't a "make index" that can compete with downloading an > INDEX.bz2. I timed a make fetchindex and it required all of 11 seconds > on my DSL line. That would work out to around 3 minutes on a dial up.
I don't think anyone in this sub-thread has read the original question correctly. As I understand it he saying that "make search" generates a new index despite having already run "make fetchindex". _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"