From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.54) id 1Eo48H-0006oG-Ej for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 18 Dec 2005 19:23:45 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id jBIJLnef016481; Sun, 18 Dec 2005 19:21:49 GMT Received: from mta09-winn.ispmail.ntl.com (mta09-winn.ispmail.ntl.com [81.103.221.49]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id jBIJJo6B022477 for ; Sun, 18 Dec 2005 19:19:50 GMT Received: from aamta11-winn.ispmail.ntl.com ([81.103.221.35]) by mta09-winn.ispmail.ntl.com with ESMTP id <20051218191950.QLYQ8609.mta09-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@aamta11-winn.ispmail.ntl.com> for ; Sun, 18 Dec 2005 19:19:50 +0000 Received: from [192.168.0.2] (really [81.99.81.161]) by aamta11-winn.ispmail.ntl.com with ESMTP id <20051218191949.VUZI29634.aamta11-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@[192.168.0.2]> for ; Sun, 18 Dec 2005 19:19:49 +0000 Message-ID: <43A5B655.3080102@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 19:19:49 +0000 From: Daniel Drake User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (X11/20051205) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] emerge starts slowly References: <200512150014.15395.jus@krytosvirus.com> <19696662.1134640252587.JavaMail.root@Sniper26> <200512152114.00079.jus@krytosvirus.com> In-Reply-To: <200512152114.00079.jus@krytosvirus.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: c49bbd0d-a5e6-45b8-9cc6-5cbb750d7913 X-Archives-Hash: cf652f90619633c272606ccbfcb4e1fc Justin Krejci wrote: > Yes, the second run and subsequent runs for a period of time all seem to be > fairly quick, but I thought it odd that my AMD64 system is always quick. The initial slowdown is due to portage having to scan over the entire tree of installed packages, calculating virtuals. Chances are your AMD64 system has fewer packages installed (and is faster by system specification too). Hopefully portage 2.1 will make improvements in this area. Daniel -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list