* Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage QOS
@ 2014-01-10 18:11 99% ` Ciaran McCreesh
0 siblings, 0 replies; 1+ results
From: Ciaran McCreesh @ 2014-01-10 18:11 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 993 bytes --]
On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 08:31:21 +0800
Patrick Lauer <patrick@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 01/10/2014 08:16 AM, heroxbd@gentoo.org wrote:
> > Igor <lanthruster@gmail.com> 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. 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...
--
Ciaran McCreesh
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 99%]
Results 1-1 of 1 | reverse | options above
-- pct% links below jump to the message on this page, permalinks otherwise --
2014-01-09 7:24 [gentoo-dev] Portage QOS LTHR
2014-01-09 8:12 ` Alec Warner
2014-01-09 12:44 ` Igor
2014-01-09 14:12 ` Christopher Schwan
2014-01-09 15:26 ` Igor
2014-01-10 0:16 ` heroxbd
2014-01-10 0:31 ` Patrick Lauer
2014-01-10 18:11 99% ` Ciaran McCreesh
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox