| 1 |
While reading this, It reminded me of a thought i allready had. |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Why isn't portage more multi-task? What stops it from, while it's busy |
| 4 |
building something, downloading the packages that its going to |
| 5 |
(build/compile/install) next? |
| 6 |
This would speed up the merging process for those with slow internet |
| 7 |
connections, and it would not affect performance I believe. Is there any |
| 8 |
problem with this? Is it just dificult to implement, or its much more |
| 9 |
tricky and problematic that it seems? |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Mikael Hallendal wrote: |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
>tis 2001-12-04 klockan 14.54 skrev djamil essaissi: |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
>>la classe ! |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
>>portage question number N: |
| 18 |
>>will it break anything emerging to independants packages (ebuilds) in |
| 19 |
>>the same time ? |
| 20 |
>> |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
>No, this is a very nice feature in Portage. Since it doesn't use a |
| 23 |
>single shared database file it's no problem. You should look though that |
| 24 |
>two seperate emergies doesn't try to install the packages (which might |
| 25 |
>cause problems since the second might clean the build directory while |
| 26 |
>the first one is working in there). |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
>Regards, |
| 29 |
> Mikael Hallendal |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
But.. in that case, I simply can't do.. since the second can mess up the |
| 32 |
first emerge. Right? |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
However, paralel emerges would be very nice, In fact.. another thing |
| 35 |
that crossed my mind.. is why doesn't portage, builds independent |
| 36 |
packages in parallel(at the same time)? |
| 37 |
I'm saying this, because i've noticed in my SMP box, that, even when |
| 38 |
i'm "ebuilding" something, i still have a lot of CPU idle.. (i used top |
| 39 |
to "check this out") it simply appears that, gcc, make and other apps |
| 40 |
don't take full use of the available CPU. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
So, launching multiple ebuilds, and downloading, would use the system |
| 43 |
mutch more efficently, (and obviously, higher loads will make it more |
| 44 |
unsresponsive). There must be a way to take advange of this, without |
| 45 |
having the whole system at his knees (limiting the number of parallel |
| 46 |
ebuilds that would be launched automaticaly, but letting the user run |
| 47 |
has mutch has he pretends to). |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
Is this really a good idea? If not.. why? |
| 51 |
Regards, |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
Miguel Sousa Filipe |
Archives