| 1 |
Roman Gaufman wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>>You're a very patient person, or your offline machine is at least |
| 4 |
>>a 4 3Ghz Xeon with 4 GB RAM, or you never compiled something like |
| 5 |
>>X and/or OpenOffice and some other nice little things ;-) . |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> 800mhz with 256Mb ram -- why do I need a 100% up to date system? -- so |
| 9 |
> X takes about 4 hours to compile, so what? -- what difference does it |
| 10 |
> make? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I think almost no one and also for OpenOffice if the box hasn't better |
| 13 |
things to do. I thought that the times were worse than which ones you |
| 14 |
reported for such machine. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
>>It is that what you're describing is a lucky, but I fear uncommon, |
| 17 |
>>situation: you can afford a plus machine and you don't have different |
| 18 |
>>machines and machines types to compile for. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> First of all, you can setup distcc, and have a bunch of 200mhz offline |
| 22 |
> machines get anything compiled reasonably fast. But is 800mhz really a |
| 23 |
> "plus machine" -- lets be realistic here... |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Yes, a 800 Mhz with 256 MB is not a "plus machine" |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
>>I think that a common |
| 28 |
>>situation, with different machines and machine types and production |
| 29 |
>>machines, require a big overhead either in CPU load, either to schedule, |
| 30 |
>>monitor and manage the compilations for not suffering for such CPU load |
| 31 |
>>increase. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> Just get 1 offline machine to do that, and stick the packages on a |
| 35 |
> shared package repository. Whats the problem? -- it only has to be |
| 36 |
> once for a network. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
If you have 2-3 architectures (x86, PPC ..., 32 and 64 bits) and/or 2-3 |
| 39 |
machine types (AMD, Intel, PIII, Celeron, Xeon) to get one binary |
| 40 |
packages for all the machines you have to compile the same thing many |
| 41 |
times, one for each architecture and machine type and then you have more |
| 42 |
trouble to manage the binaries and their installations (it is, b.e. you |
| 43 |
have to share them in different path and to install from different path |
| 44 |
from each different machine). |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
> Again, I only have gcc on 1 machine, and no matter how slow that |
| 47 |
> machine is, it gets thing compiled anyway. With ccache, updates take |
| 48 |
> conciderably less time and 90% of the stuff I compile on it, gets |
| 49 |
> compiled in less than an hour. |
| 50 |
> |
| 51 |
> Whatever takes longer than an hour isnt a problem either since its |
| 52 |
> compiled once and distributed as a binary package to all machines. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
I can't disagree too hardly, because I made the same thing ;-) |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
Andrea |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
-- |
| 59 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives