| 1 |
On 8/24/05, Willie Wong <wwong@×××××××××.edu> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 08:30:11PM +0000, Fernando Meira wrote: |
| 4 |
> > Oh.. and by the way, how reliable is this prediction? |
| 5 |
> > (...) |
| 6 |
> > [ebuild N ] sys-apps/hdparm-5.9 |
| 7 |
> > [ebuild N ] sys-libs/pwdb-0.62 |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > Estimated update time: 6 hours, 7 minutes. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > All system in 6h? It is something like 120 packages.. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> What's the speed of your box? I recently did an emerge --emptytree |
| 15 |
> world on my 1.6G Pentium M laptop. It had 446 packages done in less |
| 16 |
> than 29 hours (I say less than because if would run long stretches at |
| 17 |
> a time and stop after failed downloads here and there because of |
| 18 |
> wireless problems... for all I know it could have been sitting there |
| 19 |
> waiting for me to fix my wireless router for a couple of hours or |
| 20 |
> more). |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> So if you have a comparably fast system, with not too many useflags |
| 23 |
> enabled, I'd say that 120 packages in 6 hours is quite possible. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I have a P4-2.4GHz laptop. |
| 27 |
I forgot to say that the estimation time was made by genlop. And was quite |
| 28 |
wrong! It took something like 11h to compile 112 packages, (though I've |
| 29 |
interrupted while compiling gcc-3.3.6.. so it had to restart it anew). From |
| 30 |
this, I don't know if I should trust genlop anymore.. or is there something |
| 31 |
to configure so that it is more accurate? |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Just for the record, the migration to gcc-3.4.4 went just fine.. until now |
| 34 |
at least. :) |
Archives