1 |
On Monday, 9 December 2019 06:31:08 GMT Dale wrote: |
2 |
> Howdy, |
3 |
> |
4 |
> As some may recall, I upgraded my rig to a 8 core CPU, expanded memory, |
5 |
> added a hard drive etc etc a while back. All of which made things a bit |
6 |
> faster. Each core isn't that much faster but the extra cores certainly |
7 |
> help in most cases. It is a noticeable improvement. There's one thing |
8 |
> tho that it just doesn't help much on. That thing is the emerge command |
9 |
> itself. When I run emerge, based on gkrellm etc, it always uses one |
10 |
> core and that's it. As one knows, emerge can take a while trying to |
11 |
> figure out the best way to upgrade, especially when something is causing |
12 |
> a road block and requires a detour. Will portage ever be able to use |
13 |
> more than one core? I'd suspect that if it could use all available |
14 |
> cores, it would speed things up quite a bit. It may not be 8 times |
15 |
> faster in my case but even 4 times faster would be nice, more even |
16 |
> better. Others that have more cores/threads/whatever could see a even |
17 |
> larger speed increase. |
18 |
> |
19 |
> I'm sure trying to get portage to do things in parallel would be a |
20 |
> programmers nightmare. It may not even be doable given how the tree is |
21 |
> done or that the complexity of calculating all the options is just to |
22 |
> much to run in parallel. Still, does anyone think it will be possible |
23 |
> at some point? Anyone else think it would be as awesome as I do? |
24 |
> Anyone know if it is something that is being worked on? I think I read |
25 |
> on -dev once long ago about this but can't recall details and I'm not |
26 |
> aware of any movement in that direction. I haven't seen any mention of |
27 |
> it in a long while now. |
28 |
|
29 |
Portage does indeed run as many emerge jobs as you have cores, if you let it, |
30 |
but not the calculation of dependencies. That, as you say, cannot be divided |
31 |
into pieces to give to separate cores, and I'm sure it never will be. Pity, |
32 |
because on a slow machine like my 32-bit Atom box, it takes ages. |
33 |
|
34 |
-- |
35 |
Regards, |
36 |
Peter. |