| 1 |
Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
> Apparently, though unproven, at 17:09 on Thursday 27 January 2011, Nikos |
| 3 |
> Chantziaras did opine thusly: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
>> Given the amount of time unpack/configure/install of most packages needs |
| 7 |
>> (very short), my observation is that it would not be worth it. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
> KDE. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> unpack/configure/install takes up a significant amount of time for KDE |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Putting reply in just one post this time. This is a discussion now and |
| 17 |
not a technical problem. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
The package that failed had nothing to do with it building more than one |
| 20 |
package at a time. For some reason, it didn't have one of the patches |
| 21 |
downloaded. I guess it was a failure between here and where the mirror |
| 22 |
is. When I restarted the emerge, it found it and no problems from |
| 23 |
there. It would have done the same thing if I wasn't using -j is the |
| 24 |
point here. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Tthis was a KDE upgrade, it saved a LOT of time. Most of the time only |
| 27 |
a couple cores are really working especially when they are smaller |
| 28 |
packages. When using the -j option, all 4 cores were running and was |
| 29 |
pretty busy all the time. At one time, it was doing >20 packages at |
| 30 |
once. I also noticed the hard drive light was pretty steady too. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
All in all, using the -j option seems to have saved a lot of time here. |
| 33 |
This is a fairly new install so I can recall how long it took to install |
| 34 |
KDE the last time. This was much faster. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Just reporting a real world experience here. I wish I had got a 6 core |
| 37 |
CPU now for sure. Maybe later. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Dale |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
:-) :-) |
Archives