[gentoo-user] Re: Portage performance dropped considerably

Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > Is it just me? No, I observe the same symptoms here. -- Remy signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

[gentoo-user] Re: Portage performance dropped considerably

On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 16:35:43 +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: >Anyone else noticed this yet? Some portage update seems to have made >"emerge -uDN @world" perform about 10 times slower than before. It >used to take seconds, now it takes about 4 minutes only to tell me >that there's nothing to updat

[gentoo-user] Re: Portage performance dropped considerably

On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 07:09:49 -0800, Greg Turner wrote: >It would help if there were some decent way to get some statistics >about where portage is spending all its time (especially, I suspect, >within the bash code, but the python level would also be interesting >to analyse). Anyone know of a goo

[gentoo-user] Re: Portage performance dropped considerably

hasufell wrote: > > On 01/27/2014 12:26 AM, William Hubbs wrote: >> >> No, starting with USE="-*" is very dangerous. > > That's nonsense imo No, William is completely right. > and I use that setup on multiple servers/routers without any issues. No one doubts that it is *possible* to add the cor

[gentoo-user] Re: Portage performance dropped considerably

Walter Dnes wrote: > USE="-* ${USECPU} ${USEOTHER}" > > If you want to look at it that way, what I've > really done is to replace the default USE flag set with my own defaults ... *including* the defaults specified in individual ebuilds. About the default flags in profiles one may argue, but the

[gentoo-user] Re: Portage performance dropped considerably

Alan McKinnon wrote: > On 27/01/2014 13:59, Tanstaafl wrote: >> >> If the problem is really this potentially serious, why start from >> scratch, when Paludis is already very mature? Is it pure politics >> (someone just doesn't like Ciaran)? > > No-one likes to admit it, but I think there's some NI

[gentoo-user] Re: Portage performance dropped considerably

hasufell wrote: > > Many defaults gentoo sets do not have anything to do with default > codepaths upstream has tested. I disagree: The USE-enabling in ebuilds usually follows upstream. IIRC there was even a policy for gentoo developers which strongly suggested this. > As above, our defaults are

[gentoo-user] Re: Portage performance dropped considerably

Andrew Savchenko wrote: > > Another challenge is to make dependency resolution parallel It's a challange but won't solve the problem: On fast processors portage's speed is not so much a big issue. Moreover, the factor you can obtain this way is in the (unrealistic) best case at most the number of

[gentoo-user] Re: Portage performance dropped considerably

Greg Turner wrote: > On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 2:55 AM, Martin Vaeth wrote: >> On fast processors >> portage's speed is not so much a big issue. > > What kind of processor have you got, and where can I get one? I run gentoo on i3 (double core), c2 (double core), athlon, and pentium3. Only on athlon

[gentoo-user] Re: Portage performance dropped considerably

Pandu Poluan wrote: >> > I was thinking: is it feasible, to "precalculate" the dependency tree? >> >> I thought that's what the portage cache does, as far as it can. > > Well, AFAIK, portage needs to kind of simulate everything going on in an > ebuild to get the list of dependencies/blockers... If

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Portage performance dropped considerably

On 26/01/2014 17:24, eroen wrote: > On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 16:35:43 +0200, Nikos Chantziaras > wrote: >> Anyone else noticed this yet? Some portage update seems to have made >> "emerge -uDN @world" perform about 10 times slower than before. It >> used to take seconds, now it takes about 4 minutes on

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Portage performance dropped considerably

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 01/26/2014 06:42 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: > On 26/01/2014 17:24, eroen wrote: >> On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 16:35:43 +0200, Nikos Chantziaras >> wrote: >>> Anyone else noticed this yet? Some portage update seems to have >>> made "emerge -uDN @world" perf

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Portage performance dropped considerably

On 26/01/2014 20:04, hasufell wrote: > So, not sure where your optimism comes from. It comes from watching what happens at the end of running emerge, don't read any more into it than that. Especially not optimism, I think you might be projecting your own frustrations. A couple of years ago I use

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Portage performance dropped considerably

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 01/26/2014 07:30 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: > On 26/01/2014 20:04, hasufell wrote: >> So, not sure where your optimism comes from. > > > It comes from watching what happens at the end of running emerge, > don't read any more into it than that. Espec

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Portage performance dropped considerably

On 26/01/2014 20:41, hasufell wrote: > My pessimism comes from the fact that I wasn't able to communicate to > any1 in real life that gentoo and especially portage have a positive > usability score. Especially to those who have tried it once. As > someone who knows the internals and doesn't read po

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Portage performance dropped considerably

Am 26.01.2014 18:42, schrieb Alan McKinnon: > On 26/01/2014 17:24, eroen wrote: >> On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 16:35:43 +0200, Nikos Chantziaras >> wrote: >>> Anyone else noticed this yet? Some portage update seems to have made >>> "emerge -uDN @world" perform about 10 times slower than before. It >>> us

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Portage performance dropped considerably

Am 26.01.2014 19:04, schrieb hasufell: > So, not sure where your optimism comes from. But... some devs are > interested in starting from scratch or picking up pkgcore (which would > be the most sane thing to do IMO). please do. Please please pretty please.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Portage performance dropped considerably

On 26/01/2014 21:29, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: > Am 26.01.2014 19:04, schrieb hasufell: >> So, not sure where your optimism comes from. But... some devs are >> interested in starting from scratch or picking up pkgcore (which would >> be the most sane thing to do IMO). > > please do. Please pleas

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Portage performance dropped considerably

On 26/01/2014 21:28, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: >> So I dunno, it's annoying to have to wait, but it also prevents a lot of >> > wasted time by doing what software can do so well - detecting dependency >> > issues. >> > >> > >> > > I disagree with you here. You still get a lot of unresolved blocke

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Portage performance dropped considerably

Am 26.01.2014 20:45, schrieb Alan McKinnon: > On 26/01/2014 21:29, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: >> Am 26.01.2014 19:04, schrieb hasufell: >>> So, not sure where your optimism comes from. But... some devs are >>> interested in starting from scratch or picking up pkgcore (which would >>> be the most s

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Portage performance dropped considerably

On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 09:22:08PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: > I agree with some points and not so much on others. > > Gentoo has always targeted itself at a select bunch of users - those > with large amounts of clue who have tried and failed to get binary > distros to do what they want but can

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Portage performance dropped considerably

On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 07:41:52PM +0100, hasufell wrote: > Starting with USE="-*" on a server (which is a sane thing to do) has > become a lot more difficult as well. No, starting with USE="-*" is very dangerous. It is not recommended nor supported, in any setup, by the dev community. If you do i

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Portage performance dropped considerably

Am Montag, 27. Januar 2014, 00:26:19 schrieb William Hubbs: > No, starting with USE="-*" is very dangerous. It is not recommended nor > supported, in any setup, by the dev community. If you do it, you are > solely responsible for your system and you get to keep the broken pieces > when things do no

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Portage performance dropped considerably

PS. > +1 +1 +1 > > PLEASE do NOT start with USE="-*" > You end up having to pick up the pieces on your own. If you want to have a sane but minimal set of useflags to start with, the recommendation is to use the main profile, e.g. for amd64 default/linux/amd64/13.0 The desktop profiles as e.g.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Portage performance dropped considerably

On 26/01/2014 22:44, ny6...@gmail.com wrote: > Just my $.02: > > I don't fit into the category of those who 'need' Gentoo. I simply find it > the most coherent distro out there. Ah, but you *are* one of those who need Gentoo. It floats your boat, it satisfies your need to tinker and know what's

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Portage performance dropped considerably

On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 12:44:19 -0800, ny6...@gmail.com wrote: > It doesn't hurt that the webspace is > filled with people like yourself who have hands on knowledge about how > to do stuff, and are willing to share it with others minus the 'tude' > you see elsewhere. Now you really have insulted Al

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Portage performance dropped considerably

On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 20:29:47 +0100, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: > > So, not sure where your optimism comes from. But... some devs are > > interested in starting from scratch or picking up pkgcore (which would > > be the most sane thing to do IMO). > > please do. Please please pretty please. Do

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Portage performance dropped considerably

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 01/27/2014 12:26 AM, William Hubbs wrote: > On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 07:41:52PM +0100, hasufell wrote: >> Starting with USE="-*" on a server (which is a sane thing to do) >> has become a lot more difficult as well. > > No, starting with USE="-*" is

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Portage performance dropped considerably

On 2014-01-26 1:04 PM, hasufell wrote: So, not sure where your optimism comes from. But... some devs are interested in starting from scratch or picking up pkgcore (which would be the most sane thing to do IMO). ? If the problem is really this potentially serious, why start from scratch, when

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Portage performance dropped considerably

On 01/26/2014 08:55:35 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: Again, I think I'm just lucky. I don't think it's luck. A portage system likes to be updated very often (best: each day). I have made the experience that updating a machine which hasn't been updated for a long time (say one year), is just pain.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Portage performance dropped considerably

On 27/01/2014 13:59, Tanstaafl wrote: > On 2014-01-26 1:04 PM, hasufell wrote: >> So, not sure where your optimism comes from. But... some devs are >> interested in starting from scratch or picking up pkgcore (which would >> be the most sane thing to do IMO). > > ? > > If the problem is really t

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Portage performance dropped considerably

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 01/27/2014 02:06 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: > On 27/01/2014 13:59, Tanstaafl wrote: >> On 2014-01-26 1:04 PM, hasufell wrote: >>> So, not sure where your optimism comes from. But... some devs >>> are interested in starting from scratch or picking up

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Portage performance dropped considerably

On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 14:57:10 +0100, hasufell wrote: > If it's about performance (in the sense of speed), then paludis is > worse, because dependency calculation is more complex/complete there. That makes no sense at all. Paludis is written in a different language using different algorithms. It's

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Portage performance dropped considerably

On 01/27/2014 10:48 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 14:57:10 +0100, hasufell wrote: > >> If it's about performance (in the sense of speed), then paludis >> is worse, because dependency calculation is more complex/complete >> there. > > That makes no sense at all. Paludis is written

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Portage performance dropped considerably

Am 27.01.2014 13:06, schrieb Helmut Jarausch: > On 01/26/2014 08:55:35 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: >> Again, I think I'm just lucky. > > I don't think it's luck. > A portage system likes to be updated very often (best: each day). > I have made the experience that updating a machine which hasn't been

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Portage performance dropped considerably

On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 22:54:28 +0100, hasufell wrote: > >> If it's about performance (in the sense of speed), then paludis > >> is worse, because dependency calculation is more complex/complete > >> there. > > > > That makes no sense at all. Paludis is written in a different > > language using di

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Portage performance dropped considerably

On 01/27/2014 11:57 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 22:54:28 +0100, hasufell wrote: > If it's about performance (in the sense of speed), then paludis is worse, because dependency calculation is more complex/complete there. >>> >>> That makes no sense at all. Paludis

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Portage performance dropped considerably

On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 05:26:19PM -0600, William Hubbs wrote > On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 07:41:52PM +0100, hasufell wrote: > > Starting with USE="-*" on a server (which is a sane thing to do) has > > become a lot more difficult as well. > > No, starting with USE="-*" is very dangerous. It is not re

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Portage performance dropped considerably

On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 00:35:24 +0100, hasufell wrote: > > But the efficiency of the algorithm, and the language, affects the > > speed. You can't presume "it does more, therefore it takes longer" if > > the two programs do things in very different ways. > For people who are used to portage, paludis

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Portage performance dropped considerably

On 01/28/2014 02:34 AM, Martin Vaeth wrote: > hasufell wrote: >> >> On 01/27/2014 12:26 AM, William Hubbs wrote: >>> >>> No, starting with USE="-*" is very dangerous. >> >> That's nonsense imo > > No, William is completely right. > >> and I use that setup on multiple servers/routers without any

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Portage performance dropped considerably

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 01:42:22AM +, Martin Vaeth wrote > Walter Dnes wrote: > > USE="-* ${USECPU} ${USEOTHER}" > > > > If you want to look at it that way, what I've > > really done is to replace the default USE flag set with my own defaults > > ... *including* the defaults specified in indi

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Portage performance dropped considerably

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 01/28/2014 06:45 PM, Martin Vaeth wrote: > hasufell wrote: >> >> Many defaults gentoo sets do not have anything to do with >> default codepaths upstream has tested. > > I disagree: The USE-enabling in ebuilds usually follows upstream. > IIRC the

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Portage performance dropped considerably

hasufell wrote: If we support disabling all useflags on package level (and we do), then we support disabling all on global level as well. All _unexpected_ breakage that occurs due to that are ebuild bugs that have incorrect dependencies or missing REQUIRED_USE constraints. Defaults are just

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Portage performance dropped considerably

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 01/27/2014 02:06 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: > On 27/01/2014 13:59, Tanstaafl wrote: >> On 2014-01-26 1:04 PM, hasufell wrote: >>> So, not sure where your optimism comes from. But... some devs >>> are interested in starting from scratch or picking up

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Portage performance dropped considerably

On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 20:30:19 +0200 Alan McKinnon wrote: > It comes from watching what happens at the end of running emerge, don't > read any more into it than that. Especially not optimism, I think you > might be projecting your own frustrations. > > A couple of years ago I used to have to manuall

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Portage performance dropped considerably

On Friday 31 Jan 2014 19:03:05 Andrew Savchenko wrote: > On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 20:30:19 +0200 Alan McKinnon wrote: > > It comes from watching what happens at the end of running emerge, don't > > read any more into it than that. Especially not optimism, I think you > > might be projecting your own fru

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Portage performance dropped considerably

On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 19:13:21 + Mick wrote: > On Friday 31 Jan 2014 19:03:05 Andrew Savchenko wrote: > > On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 20:30:19 +0200 Alan McKinnon wrote: [...] > > > I'm willing to give up 4 minutes while emerge runs so I don't have to > > > spend many more minutes right afterwards doing

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Portage performance dropped considerably

On 31/01/2014 23:18, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > IMO the only way to improve this issue (without throwing good working > hardware in the window) is to rewrite dependency resolution code in > some highly optimized pure C library (probably with some asm code) I very much doubt that will help. There's

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Portage performance dropped considerably

On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 00:12:58 +0200 Alan McKinnon wrote: > > and to use this library via some python binding from portage. But I > > suppose algorithm itself should be reviewed first. > > ^this is where the speedups will lie > > 4 minutes on this here i7 monster and 40 on your Atom is ridiculous >

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Portage performance dropped considerably

On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 2:55 AM, Martin Vaeth wrote: > On fast processors > portage's speed is not so much a big issue. What kind of processor have you got, and where can I get one? -gmt

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Portage performance dropped considerably

On Jan 28, 2014 5:57 AM, "Neil Bothwick" wrote: > > On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 22:54:28 +0100, hasufell wrote: > > > >> If it's about performance (in the sense of speed), then paludis > > >> is worse, because dependency calculation is more complex/complete > > >> there. > > > > > > That makes no sense at

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Portage performance dropped considerably

On 03/02/2014 16:04, Pandu Poluan wrote: > > On Jan 28, 2014 5:57 AM, "Neil Bothwick" > wrote: >> >> On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 22:54:28 +0100, hasufell wrote: >> >> > >> If it's about performance (in the sense of speed), then paludis >> > >> is worse, because dependency calcu

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Portage performance dropped considerably

On Feb 3, 2014 9:17 PM, "Alan McKinnon" wrote: > > On 03/02/2014 16:04, Pandu Poluan wrote: > > > > On Jan 28, 2014 5:57 AM, "Neil Bothwick" > > wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 22:54:28 +0100, hasufell wrote: > >> > >> > >> If it's about performance (in the sense o