* Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage QOS
@ 2014-01-11 3:57 99% ` Patrick Lauer
0 siblings, 0 replies; 1+ results
From: Patrick Lauer @ 2014-01-11 3:57 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
On 01/11/2014 02:11 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> 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.
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.
^ 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 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2014-01-11 3:57 99% ` Patrick Lauer
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox