Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> I'm not aware of any package system that supports this.
Briegel does this. It can even build the same package (maybe with
different feature flags) in parallel. Basicly it walks the
dependency tree from leaves to root, builds binpkg's yet missing
(at the point in it r
* Dale wrote:
> If one instance of emerge doesn't know what the other instance has
> already done, then the second one could emerge it again. Doesn't emerge
> do all the calculating at the beginning and runs with that until the end?
That's also one of my questions - does parallel emerge instan
J. Roeleveld wrote:
On Thursday 27 January 2011 23:53:04 Dale wrote:
I just used -j with no number. It worked fine and I played Solitaire
and checked my email while it was running. The only thing I noticed was
it using swap. That could slow things down but otherwise, it worked fine.
I do
On Thursday 27 January 2011 23:53:04 Dale wrote:
> Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> > On 01/27/2011 09:41 PM, Dale wrote:
> >> I noticed the same thing with mine. It used a LOT of ram. I have 4Gbs
> >> and it was up to about 3Gbs at one point and using some swap as well.
> >> I'm hoping to max out to 16G
On Thursday 27 January 2011 23:59:24 Mick wrote:
> I'm running i7 Q 720 (4 cores, hyperthreaded) and have MAKEOPTS="-j9"
> without any slowdown. One or two packages (like OpenOffice) will fail and
> need -j=1 to emerge. Otherwise no noticeable drop in desktop
> responsiveness.
>
> I have not set
Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
On 01/27/2011 09:41 PM, Dale wrote:
I noticed the same thing with mine. It used a LOT of ram. I have 4Gbs
and it was up to about 3Gbs at one point and using some swap as well.
I'm hoping to max out to 16Gbs as soon as I can. May upgrade to a 6 core
CPU too.
I wonder how
On Thursday 27 January 2011 22:18:22 J. Roeleveld wrote:
> On Thursday 27 January 2011 23:05:22 Paul Hartman wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 3:46 PM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> > >> Once, when building my kernel, I accidentally forgot to specify the
> > >> number of makes and ran "make -j all". Tha
On Thursday 27 January 2011 23:05:22 Paul Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 3:46 PM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> > On Thursday 27 January 2011 21:25:02 Paul Hartman wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Nikos Chantziaras
wrote:
> >> > On 01/27/2011 09:41 PM, Dale wrote:
> >> >> YoYo Sisk
On Thursday 27 January 2011 22:06:30 YoYo Siska wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 08:18:34PM +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> > On Thursday 27 January 2011 19:56:23 Allan Gottlieb wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 27 2011, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 17:09:27 +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 3:46 PM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> On Thursday 27 January 2011 21:25:02 Paul Hartman wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>> > On 01/27/2011 09:41 PM, Dale wrote:
>> >> YoYo Siska wrote:
>> >>> Yes.
>> >>> It might not be perfect, but mostly it w
On Thursday 27 January 2011 22:06:30 YoYo Siska wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 08:18:34PM +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> > On Thursday 27 January 2011 19:56:23 Allan Gottlieb wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 27 2011, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 17:09:27 +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
On Thursday 27 January 2011 21:25:02 Paul Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> > On 01/27/2011 09:41 PM, Dale wrote:
> >> YoYo Siska wrote:
> >>> Yes.
> >>> It might not be perfect, but mostly it works pretty well.
> >>> Once make started 10 or so process, w
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 01/27/2011 09:41 PM, Dale wrote:
>>
>> YoYo Siska wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>> It might not be perfect, but mostly it works pretty well.
>>> Once make started 10 or so process, which ate all my ram, because I
>>> forgot to reenable swap, wh
On 01/27/2011 12:15 PM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>
> Btw, if you're using more instances than the amount of CPUs, the result
> will be slow-down.
>
> With the default kernel scheduler, best if amount of CPUs + 1. (On a
> 4-core, that's -j5).
And if you use emerge's "--jobs 2", each of those job
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 08:18:34PM +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> On Thursday 27 January 2011 19:56:23 Allan Gottlieb wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 27 2011, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > > On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 17:09:27 +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> > >> > So on a 20 package world update, only 19 are faster wh
On 01/27/2011 09:41 PM, Dale wrote:
YoYo Siska wrote:
Yes.
It might not be perfect, but mostly it works pretty well.
Once make started 10 or so process, which ate all my ram, because I
forgot to reenable swap, when I was playing with something before that
:)
yoyo
I noticed the same thing with
YoYo Siska wrote:
Yes.
It might not be perfect, but mostly it works pretty well.
Once make started 10 or so process, which ate all my ram, because I
forgot to reenable swap, when I was playing with something before that
:)
yoyo
I noticed the same thing with mine. It used a LOT of ram. I
On Thursday 27 January 2011 19:56:23 Allan Gottlieb wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 27 2011, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 17:09:27 +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> >> > So on a 20 package world update, only 19 are faster while the 20th
> >> > runs at the same speed? Where's the loss there? Ev
On Thu, Jan 27 2011, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 17:09:27 +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>
>> > So on a 20 package world update, only 19 are faster while the 20th
>> > runs at the same speed? Where's the loss there? Even if the last were
>> > slower, it would be worth it.
>>
>>
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 03:12:49PM +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> On Thursday 27 January 2011 15:05:25 YoYo Siska wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 03:33:21PM +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> > > On 01/27/2011 03:11 PM, Dale wrote:
> > > >[...]
> > > >I am using the -j option for the first time now
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 11:10:02 +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote about Re:
[gentoo-user] Re: Simultaneously emerging multiple packages with same
dependencies:
>On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 07:12:24 +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
[snip]
>> You can try, but the second instance with simply block until th
Alan McKinnon wrote:
Apparently, though unproven, at 17:09 on Thursday 27 January 2011, Nikos
Chantziaras did opine thusly:
Given the amount of time unpack/configure/install of most packages needs
(very short), my observation is that it would not be worth it.
KDE.
unpack/configure/i
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 17:09:27 +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> > So on a 20 package world update, only 19 are faster while the 20th
> > runs at the same speed? Where's the loss there? Even if the last were
> > slower, it would be worth it.
>
> Given the amount of time unpack/configure/install o
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 5:12 AM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>
> You can try, but the second instance with simply block until the lock has
> been removed.
>
> I'm not aware of any package system that supports this. I don't think
> adding support for this justifies the added complexity.
>
>
Correct
Apparently, though unproven, at 17:09 on Thursday 27 January 2011, Nikos
Chantziaras did opine thusly:
> On 01/27/2011 04:53 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 16:30:30 +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> >>> Using --jobs does a better job of making use of your CPU because one
> >>> p
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 7:33 AM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 01/27/2011 03:11 PM, Dale wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>> I am using the -j option for the first time now. I'm updating KDE. It
>> seems to work fine. It doesn't scroll all the stuff like with a regular
>> emerges but this new rig is so fast, I
On 01/27/2011 04:53 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 16:30:30 +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
Using --jobs does a better job of making use of your CPU because one
package can use it fully for compiling while another is configuring.
And what about the last package? The time you ga
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 16:30:30 +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> > Using --jobs does a better job of making use of your CPU because one
> > package can use it fully for compiling while another is configuring.
>
> And what about the last package? The time you gained for faster
> configure and in
On 01/27/2011 04:16 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 15:33:21 +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
I am using the -j option for the first time now. I'm updating KDE. It
seems to work fine. It doesn't scroll all the stuff like with a
regular emerges but this new rig is so fast, I can't re
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 15:33:21 +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> > I am using the -j option for the first time now. I'm updating KDE. It
> > seems to work fine. It doesn't scroll all the stuff like with a
> > regular emerges but this new rig is so fast, I can't read it anyway.
> > I did have a packa
On Thursday 27 January 2011 15:05:25 YoYo Siska wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 03:33:21PM +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> > On 01/27/2011 03:11 PM, Dale wrote:
> > >[...]
> > >I am using the -j option for the first time now. I'm updating KDE. It
> > >seems to work fine. It doesn't scroll all th
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 03:33:21PM +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 01/27/2011 03:11 PM, Dale wrote:
> >[...]
> >I am using the -j option for the first time now. I'm updating KDE. It
> >seems to work fine. It doesn't scroll all the stuff like with a regular
> >emerges but this new rig is so fas
On 01/27/2011 03:11 PM, Dale wrote:
[...]
I am using the -j option for the first time now. I'm updating KDE. It
seems to work fine. It doesn't scroll all the stuff like with a regular
emerges but this new rig is so fast, I can't read it anyway. I did have
a package to fail and it spit out the err
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 07:12:24 +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
I'm aware that portage uses locking mechanism before modifying 'world'
file, but what about the actual building process ? I'd expect emerge
to check if dependency package is already build/installed (or
current
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 07:12:24 +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> > I'm aware that portage uses locking mechanism before modifying 'world'
> > file, but what about the actual building process ? I'd expect emerge
> > to check if dependency package is already build/installed (or
> > currently being bui
On 01/26/2011 02:12 PM, PK wrote:
Hi,
Is there any way to simultaneously emerge multiple packages (multiple
instances of 'emerge') that share common dependencies ?
I'm aware that portage uses locking mechanism before modifying 'world'
file, but what about the actual building process ? I'd expec
36 matches
Mail list logo
