1 |
Dale writes: |
2 |
|
3 |
> Alex Schuster wrote: |
4 |
> > Dale writes: |
5 |
|
6 |
> >> But if you emerge something and it has to be fetched first, is that |
7 |
> >> counted in the time genlop shows or not? That is the question. I |
8 |
> >> don't think it is counted but I'm not sure. |
9 |
> > |
10 |
> > That's what I thought, too, but then I simply tried to be sure. |
11 |
> > Download time _is_ counted. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> Now we know. If I was on dial-up again, I could sure test that theory. |
14 |
> 3KBs/sec would certainly make a difference. :-( Pardon me if I refuse |
15 |
> to go back tho. I like youtube to much. |
16 |
|
17 |
It's easier than that, I simply emerged vanilla-sources-3.0 after deleting |
18 |
the tarball. I did not use my digital wrist-watch which I could have done, |
19 |
instead I looked into emerge.log. The long numbers to the left are seconds |
20 |
since 1970, the difference is what genlop uses. The only question was |
21 |
whether it uses the line 'emerge (x of y) category/package-version to /' or |
22 |
'(x of y) Compiling/Packaging ...' to determine the start time. |
23 |
|
24 |
> >> I set mine to fetch in the |
25 |
> >> background so most of the time the fetch is done after a couple |
26 |
> >> packages gets compiled. |
27 |
> > |
28 |
> > What about parallel emerges? I guess genlop will not take this into |
29 |
> > account. |
30 |
> |
31 |
> I would think not. As long as the tarball is downloaded before emerge |
32 |
> gets to it to compile. I doubt it would even know how long it took to |
33 |
> download either. |
34 |
|
35 |
I wasn't talking about the download time here, but about the total time. If |
36 |
I emerge two independent packages A and B, which take one hour each to |
37 |
build, what does genlop say if I use emerge -j and they build in parallel? |
38 |
This would take about two hours for each. And indeed, that's what genlop |
39 |
says. So genlop -t is inaccurate when you are emerging with the -j option. |
40 |
|
41 |
Wonko |