From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j5BHDupA018003 for ; Sat, 11 Jun 2005 17:14:05 GMT Received: from p061204002070.ppp.prin.ne.jp ([61.204.2.70] helo=linux.box) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.43) id 1Dh9V1-0005Vz-Du for gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Sat, 11 Jun 2005 17:10:25 +0000 Received: by linux.box (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 30C69C1B6D; Sun, 12 Jun 2005 02:10:03 +0900 (JST) From: Jason Stubbs To: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] slow dependency checking Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 02:09:59 +0900 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.1 References: <1118504067.11694.173.camel@localhost> In-Reply-To: <1118504067.11694.173.camel@localhost> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart2277315.4PpnCpdV5Q"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200506120210.01484.jstubbs@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 5200c76b-664a-437e-b46c-18d5447ab2f3 X-Archives-Hash: 0dca441cb805cf0f0718156d81cdb4b6 --nextPart2277315.4PpnCpdV5Q Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Sunday 12 June 2005 00:34, Brian wrote: > I believe I have found an error in the way porthole is using portage. > > After an emerge sync which had a large number of update downloaded. I > switched to our upgrades view which stated building the treeview. > > It was extremely slow, something I had noticed from time to time but did > not know why. It usually finished before I determined why. This time > using gnome system monitor I was able to determine that it was portage > doing repeated calls to "ebuild.sh depend" for different packages. > > After it is complete a db reload and new upgrades list is quick again. > > Am I correct in that the imported instance of portage was still using > the old metadata cache at the time of import? Even though the cache was > updated at the end of the sync. After a sync we should re-initialize > our instance of portage for it to use the new cache? Correct. I'm not sure what will happen in the future, but adding checks for= =20 this into the current design will noticably slow down the general case (whe= re=20 the cache isn't changed by external processes). Regards, Jason Stubbs --nextPart2277315.4PpnCpdV5Q Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBCqxrpxvWNPsk/ZP4RAtCxAKCtT7Xw7VkND6q+Kgi1Esb4XjtwPgCfTCOO qzWXXsu3fly9gsOhm0sG8nc= =Z1uw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart2277315.4PpnCpdV5Q-- -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list