From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 (2022-12-14) on finch.gentoo.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.3 required=5.0 tests=DMARC_MISSING,FREEMAIL_FROM, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RDNS_NONE,SPOOFED_FREEMAIL_NO_RDNS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=4.0.0 Received: from smtp.netcabo.pt (unknown [212.113.174.249]) by chiba.3jane.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27F84159A1 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 19:51:32 -0600 (CST) Received: from mail pickup service by smtp.netcabo.pt with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 01:50:05 +0000 Received: from netcabo.pt ([213.22.34.175]) by smtp.netcabo.pt with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.3779); Thu, 6 Dec 2001 01:49:59 +0000 Message-ID: <3C0ECF32.3090506@netcabo.pt> Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 01:51:46 +0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 From: "Miguel S. Filipe" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.5) Gecko/20011023 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "gentoo-dev@gentoo.org" References: <1007417522.5293.0.camel@zoidberg> <1007474076.482.4.camel@djamil> <1007566748.1109.19.camel@zoidberg> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="ISO-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Dec 2001 01:49:59.0952 (UTC) FILETIME=[5087C100:01C17DF8] Subject: [gentoo-dev] Multiple emerges at the same time. ("multi-tasking" in portage) Sender: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org Errors-To: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Developer discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: X-Archives-Salt: 373b3f2c-118d-4fcf-bbe5-84ce5edebe7b X-Archives-Hash: efd4b85611ebfcdff5a25f17f59dcb4e While reading this, It reminded me of a thought i allready had. Why isn't portage more multi-task? What stops it from, while it's busy building something, downloading the packages that its going to (build/compile/install) next? This would speed up the merging process for those with slow internet connections, and it would not affect performance I believe. Is there any problem with this? Is it just dificult to implement, or its much more tricky and problematic that it seems? Mikael Hallendal wrote: >tis 2001-12-04 klockan 14.54 skrev djamil essaissi: > >>la classe ! >> >>portage question number N: >>will it break anything emerging to independants packages (ebuilds) in >>the same time ? >> > >No, this is a very nice feature in Portage. Since it doesn't use a >single shared database file it's no problem. You should look though that >two seperate emergies doesn't try to install the packages (which might >cause problems since the second might clean the build directory while >the first one is working in there). > >Regards, > Mikael Hallendal > But.. in that case, I simply can't do.. since the second can mess up the first emerge. Right? However, paralel emerges would be very nice, In fact.. another thing that crossed my mind.. is why doesn't portage, builds independent packages in parallel(at the same time)? I'm saying this, because i've noticed in my SMP box, that, even when i'm "ebuilding" something, i still have a lot of CPU idle.. (i used top to "check this out") it simply appears that, gcc, make and other apps don't take full use of the available CPU. So, launching multiple ebuilds, and downloading, would use the system mutch more efficently, (and obviously, higher loads will make it more unsresponsive). There must be a way to take advange of this, without having the whole system at his knees (limiting the number of parallel ebuilds that would be launched automaticaly, but letting the user run has mutch has he pretends to). Is this really a good idea? If not.. why? Regards, Miguel Sousa Filipe