Gentoo Archives: gentoo-performance

From: Jeremy Brake <gentoolists@×××××××××××.nz>
To: gentoo-performance@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-performance] gentoo-performance
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:56:21
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-performance] gentoo-performance by Alec Warner
Alec Warner wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >Jeremy Brake wrote: > > >>How about speeding up the wait time on updating the portage cache after >>a sync.. even on my AMD 64 3500 it takes a number of minutes to chug >>through.. >>are there any known ways to "vrrmmm" this up a little? >> >>Jeremy >> >> > >Well the current problem is that in the 2.0 portage branch the cache >code sucks. This is fixed in ~arch portage ( the 2.1_pre series ). For >you users that don't want to upgrade to unstable, you should be able to >use cdb to speed up the process. > >Setting RSYNC_EXCLUDES will not speed up the second half of the --sync ( >the --metadata portion ). > >Explanation: *snip* > >
Thanks Alec, thats a really awesome explaination :) My server runs a 5am script which does this, so i'm not too worried about that machine. For those who are curious, its an Athlon 1800+ on a 10Mbit link, and it takes between 1 and 10 mins to process " emerge --sync --quiet; emerge -upvD world; glsa-check -t all " My home pc is on a 2Mbit link, so I only sync when i feel like checking for updates, or when I want to install something new. This will take minimum of 10 mins just to update the cache most times, sometimes more. Being a home pc, I'm happy to have some unstable stuff installed. How messy would it be to just run ~amd64 portage? would this work, or do I ideally need to make the entire base system ~amd64? (ugh). Jeremy -- gentoo-performance@g.o mailing list