From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MzCnV-0000U8-4F for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 17 Oct 2009 17:10:29 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 010ADE0770; Sat, 17 Oct 2009 17:10:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com (fg-out-1718.google.com [72.14.220.155]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B989CE0770 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 2009 17:10:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id d23so1320313fga.10 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 2009 10:10:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:subject:date :user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id; bh=RfqLZxhgtdLdG2DhEoXuNeD7cUWLPrvgO0F5OHkKtAg=; b=HGfkYcqCKN2km+Q+7nKWWcpzI7XRZitskiXu7jrSxyUWjJCKZ7Haw4KekKGUHwYRtT Y9lqygAG2K+OokaY3b6RsSTvbf0hEGNe9M1M2B2Lsgp/foow+zg4rmc7HSSG/gZT/mTY kYoMdz8TA7+hITDN8KOV8xrr5OrF9t5OmItpw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:message-id; b=w0n22pV90QPSqQGpZn54jzjtEn9Rwligygwje7pHAuMoIujSXqHgI+oMtS0LfFYktA VTFq73cWDatBvrhRgkCTnV9pqa2Od2kNZXY2BM1QaUz3k5n+QRiLQjH8K0d2tmd3air6 UyKujdIJTPYpzXcA2KASEQxRaoA964/GP6bL8= Received: by 10.86.169.25 with SMTP id r25mr2012327fge.17.1255799427185; Sat, 17 Oct 2009 10:10:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from energy.localnet (energy.heim10.tu-clausthal.de [139.174.197.94]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d4sm3814974fga.16.2009.10.17.10.10.26 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 17 Oct 2009 10:10:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Volker Armin Hemmann To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Library file formats Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 19:10:22 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/2.6.31.3r4; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; ) References: <200910161220.30636.peter@humphrey.ukfsn.org> <200910171130.32203.volkerarmin@googlemail.com> <20091017123657.32816e5d@majikthise> In-Reply-To: <20091017123657.32816e5d@majikthise> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200910171910.22992.volkerarmin@googlemail.com> X-Archives-Salt: 65c85136-a5ab-48e7-8156-ef6fdbe217cd X-Archives-Hash: 8fe549786ddd939417c80ad52e1f4d8e On Samstag 17 Oktober 2009, Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 11:30:32 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: > > > My point was that using eix is faster than posting to the list and > > > awaiting a reply. The same is not necessarily true of emerge -s :( > > > > depends on your harddisk and filesystem. emerge -s can be as fast as > > eix on my box. > > On a reasonably fast system (dual core 64 bit with RAID5 over SATA2): > > eix lafilefixer 0.03s user 0.01s system 13% cpu 0.288 total > emerge -s lafilefixer 1.37s user 0.19s system 63% cpu 2.460 total > > almost ten times as long. > > On a much slower system, Dell Mini 10: > > eix lafilefixer 0.17s user 0.05s system 17% cpu 1.251 total > emerge -s lafilefixer 8.64s user 1.46s system 42% cpu 23.803 total > > Nearer twenty times as long. > > So the conclusion is that if you spend enough on hardware, emerge -s is > only ten times slower than eix :-O > and the difference is still just a second