From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B3E913800E for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 14:04:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 10B81E0A76; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 14:04:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from sempidan.tirtonadi.com (unknown [69.65.40.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 112E2E0A69 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 14:04:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ve0-f175.google.com ([209.85.128.175]:48369) by sempidan.tirtonadi.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1WAK8m-0004qs-Qu for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 03 Feb 2014 21:04:48 +0700 Received: by mail-ve0-f175.google.com with SMTP id c14so4833988vea.6 for ; Mon, 03 Feb 2014 06:04:47 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=kesbJkLrZakeVtf+WRLZKvKl4OIZ6S5A+XlX/i2z3eM=; b=Wbyb6AnuXMalFUaiFtmsrFx13ezxF96klJkCQfS5ycYW08eMAl2j0O9tlkQZqldxfL cJ/qrAEsGtVH4fw53x4lOCai5X+3Ktiaf9NdDnrO718zPuyMvnEvABqOO0Y9OPMnYIvC X7cWYYMr5LW9vzbhGq41S9B/Tfa8f/dP6Mcnaw0NAFKxULWkdp0Qi4PbPYPtpWN5WgOS Ey9gKUsCu7QYCqSVhmR38msEyH6BC5C3S6tYRSDig00Qer1ac/TZqJKv5x54PTgoOSwo oEF4KEoYKE9fR+AbCYRgnqV6zmQGyiKk/vFnxMomaaApDvt1P1KaHDlTkL0oo+o9mmlW gnbg== 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 X-Received: by 10.58.119.161 with SMTP id kv1mr5035208veb.21.1391436287413; Mon, 03 Feb 2014 06:04:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.12.205 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 06:04:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.12.205 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 06:04:47 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20140127225700.44fb0c81@hactar.digimed.co.uk> References: <20140126162426.7a6d1f30@falcon.eroen.eu> <52E54920.5010207@gmail.com> <52E54E34.7080709@gentoo.org> <52E64A27.9090105@libertytrek.org> <52E659F1.1090508@gmail.com> <52E665B6.9030301@gentoo.org> <20140127214837.47278679@digimed.co.uk> <52E6D594.1010508@gentoo.org> <20140127225700.44fb0c81@hactar.digimed.co.uk> Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 21:04:47 +0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Portage performance dropped considerably From: Pandu Poluan To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c32274a398d104f1810122 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - sempidan.tirtonadi.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.gentoo.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - poluan.info X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: sempidan.tirtonadi.com: authenticated_id: rileyer+pandu.poluan.info/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-Archives-Salt: f0362951-0248-4fd0-9a5c-27e2ba24c8e1 X-Archives-Hash: bf8b6ef8ef33972d6f1f8d003eda65a9 --001a11c32274a398d104f1810122 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Jan 28, 2014 5:57 AM, "Neil Bothwick" wrote: > > On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 22:54:28 +0100, hasufell wrote: > > > >> If it's about performance (in the sense of speed), then paludis > > >> is worse, because dependency calculation is more complex/complete > > >> there. > > > > > > That makes no sense at all. Paludis is written in a different > > > language using different algorithms. It's not about the amount of > > > work it does so much as how efficiently it does it. > > > That's exactly what I was saying. I was talking about speed, not > > efficiency. > > But the efficiency of the algorithm, and the language, affects the speed. > You can't presume "it does more, therefore it takes longer" if the two > programs do things in very different ways. > I was thinking: is it feasible, to "precalculate" the dependency tree? Or, at least "preprocess" all the sane (and insane) dependencies to help portage? Rgds, -- --001a11c32274a398d104f1810122 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8


On Jan 28, 2014 5:57 AM, "Neil Bothwick" <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 22:54:28 +0100, hasufell wrote:
>
> > >> If it's about performance (in the sense of speed), then paludis
> > >> is worse, because dependency calculation is more complex/complete
> > >> there.
> > >
> > > That makes no sense at all. Paludis is written in a different
> > > language using different algorithms. It's not about the amount of
> > > work it does so much as how efficiently it does it.
>
> > That's exactly what I was saying. I was talking about speed, not
> > efficiency.
>
> But the efficiency of the algorithm, and the language, affects the speed.
> You can't presume "it does more, therefore it takes longer" if the two
> programs do things in very different ways.
>

I was thinking: is it feasible, to "precalculate" the dependency tree? Or, at least "preprocess" all the sane (and insane) dependencies to help portage?

Rgds,
--

--001a11c32274a398d104f1810122--