Alexander Skwar wrote: >Michael Sullivan wrote: > > > >>Keep in mind though that multiple emerges will share resources, so each >>process may lose speed... >> >> > >Something that I always wondered about - does it >actually *lose* speed? IOW: Is it, *IN* *TOTAL* >slower to do multiple emerges in parallel compared >to doing them sequentially? > >Alexander Skwar > >
I'm no guru for sure but here is my $.02 worth. Let's say emerge one takes ten minutes and emerge two takes 30 minutes. If you have a single CPU machine I would think that if both were started at the same time, the both of them would take 40 minutes. So in my theory, "emerge one && emerge two" should be the same as doing seperately. Of course, emerge one would finish first but while emerge one is working it will slow down emerge two as well. This is assuming they have the same nice settings of course. Now if you have a dually or quad CPU rig, that may vary depending on the compile times and a few other things. I would also think that one emerge would speed up the compile for example when the other is waiting on the data to/from a drive as well. So it may make it a little faster. I wonder of there is a good way to measure this. My worthless $0.02 worth. Dale :-) -- To err is human, I'm most certainly human. I have four rigs: 1: Home built; Abit NF7 ver 2.0 w/ AMD 2500+ CPU, 1GB of ram and right now two 80GB hard drives. Named Smoker 2: Home built; Iwill KK266-R w/ AMD 1GHz CPU, 256MBs of ram and a 4GB drive. Named Swifty 3: Home built; Gigabyte GA-71XE4 w/ 800MHz CPU, 224MBs of ram and a 2.5GB drive. Named Pokey 4: Compaq Proliant 6000 Server w/ Quad 200MHz CPUs, 128MBs of ram and a 4.3GB SCSI drive. Named Putput All run Gentoo Linux, all run folding. #1 is my desktop, 2, 3, and 4 are set up as servers. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
