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 4614113800E for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 10:56:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3CFD1E0AAA; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 10:56:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3DF1FE0A8D for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 10:56:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CE1433F776 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 10:56:18 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.21 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.339, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jfG3np9yJUVg for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 10:56:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D359733F7DC for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 10:56:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WAHCA-00039W-LR for gentoo-user@gentoo.org; Mon, 03 Feb 2014 11:56:06 +0100 Received: from bois.imp.fu-berlin.de ([160.45.40.234]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 03 Feb 2014 11:56:06 +0100 Received: from martin by bois.imp.fu-berlin.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 03 Feb 2014 11:56:06 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org From: Martin Vaeth Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: Portage performance dropped considerably Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 10:55:41 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <52E5543B.4070808@gmail.com> <20140131230305.1b4ee153af223fd43f541fac@gmail.com> <201401311913.45133.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> <20140201011821.5d386f29024e40bd6bcc4ed5@gmail.com> <52EC1FEA.5090308@gmail.com> <20140202134055.64c092a56b151523a576302f@gmail.com> X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: bois.imp.fu-berlin.de User-Agent: slrn/pre1.0.0-26 (Linux) 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 X-Archives-Salt: 48c430de-44e7-40e6-8800-625481ef4bca X-Archives-Hash: 8be07f23bc4787172d402d858815b854 Andrew Savchenko wrote: > > Another challenge is to make dependency resolution parallel It's a challange but won't solve the problem: On fast processors portage's speed is not so much a big issue. Moreover, the factor you can obtain this way is in the (unrealistic) best case at most the number of cores. Realistically, on a dual core perhaps the factor 1.3 (and at the price of blocking parallel running applications correspondingly more).