From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA7E3138247 for ; Sat, 11 Jan 2014 03:54:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 27B62E0BB7; Sat, 11 Jan 2014 03:54:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3845CE0BA0 for ; Sat, 11 Jan 2014 03:54:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.5] (unknown [114.91.186.16]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: patrick) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 12A1833F6E2 for ; Sat, 11 Jan 2014 03:54:23 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <52D0C136.8090209@gentoo.org> Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 11:57:42 +0800 From: Patrick Lauer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage QOS References: <52ce4eab.463f700a.4b43.16bd@mx.google.com> <52ce9994.24f5980a.0660.342e@mx.google.com> <6345949.JsNcU8lWSX@cschwan-laptop> <52cebfa2.aa78980a.7a02.42e5@mx.google.com> <86r48g8zdc.fsf@moguhome00.in.awa.tohoku.ac.jp> <52CF3F59.8010008@gentoo.org> <20140110181152.715f3e2f@googlemail.com> In-Reply-To: <20140110181152.715f3e2f@googlemail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: bb7ede5f-4500-4aac-b3b1-9822620da8d6 X-Archives-Hash: 6a51eb7948afc08e4a362d716b29e897 On 01/11/2014 02:11 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 08:31:21 +0800 > Patrick Lauer wrote: >> On 01/10/2014 08:16 AM, heroxbd@gentoo.org wrote: >>> Igor writes: >>> >>>> The ebuilds have approximately the same time to install, the >>>> failure rate is about the same, emerge is getting slower. >>> >>> I am curious about the slowness of emerge. >>> >>> How about profile the portage and rewrite the time-crucial part in >>> C/C++, or ideally, borrowing the counterpart from paludis? How >>> feasible is that? >> >> Last I checked paludis wasn't faster - on average portage was a few >> percents faster. > > Your benchmark was comparing uncached behaviour, where bash is the slow > part and which users don't see. Wrong - even the cached cases was showing the same timing proportions. And users see the uncached case whenever they use an overlay. > You were also not comparing like with > like -- any benchmarks of this nature should be taken with a heavy > pinch of salt, since Portage with everything turned on does less > validation that Paludis does with everything turned off... > Not my problem, bad code is bad.