On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 12:01:12AM +0200, Bastian Balthazar Bux wrote: > Sorry, but here the results are not those expected: .51.22 vs .53_rc5... try with a vanilla .53_rc5 please
> ==== time emerge --metadata; 1st run; 2.0.51.22-r3 > real 2m24.419s > user 0m12.329s > sys 0m3.644s > > ==== time emerge --metadata; 2nd run; 2.0.51.22-r3 > real 1m17.700s > user 0m12.257s > sys 0m2.976s > > ==== time emerge --metadata; 1st run; 2.0.53_rc5 patched > real 3m14.073s > user 0m12.917s > sys 0m9.433s > > ==== time emerge --metadata; 2nd run; 2.0.53_rc5 patched > real 3m42.874s > user 0m12.869s > sys 0m9.333s Wasn't expecting a massive improvement, although wasn't sure as hell wasn't expecting a 3x increase in sys. :) Should've seen a large tweak for the first .53_rc5 run also, since it (essentially) would be a forced rewrite of the cache due to INHERITED vs _eclasses_ key changes (moving eclass_cache into the backend). Not running anything additional via /etc/portage/modules I'd bet, but asking to verify also... Meanwhile, thanks for testing; contrary to other results, but _any_ regression I'm after. ~harring
pgp0XVgP7qMOk.pgp
Description: PGP signature
