On 26 October 2019 12:16:37 BST, John Blinka <john.bli...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I agree that it would be nice if emerge could do that automatically, >> although I have no clue how to do that or even if it can be done at >> all. Back when I had less memory, I could let FF, LOo or another >> package run at full speed but only if it was only one of those >packages >> at a time. Thing is, on occasion two or more of those updates would >hit >> and due to the long compile times, end up compiling at the same time. >> Do you think there is a way for the devs to set up a method to tell >> emerge not to emerge certain packages at the same time? In other >words, >> if Firefox is emerging, LOo is held until it is done or vice versa. >> Maybe even have it so others can be listed. The list of large >packages >> are likely small but they can have a huge impact on systems with less >> memory. >> >> You think that a feature worth asking the devs about? Maybe they can >> figure out a way to implement that?? > > >There already is a mechanism you can use, but it’s not the automatic >type >that you (and, admittedly I) would like. > >I have 3 old 2 core machines, and I use distcc heavily to reduce emerge >times. The “fastest” (not really) and best equipped has 16 gb memory. >I >do updates on this machine (with distcc help from the others) and >distribute packages to the rest. After a lot of experimenting, I find >that >MAKEOPTS=“-j13 -l5” works the best on this fastest machine. That >setting >allows it to attempt a workload that it alone doesn’t have the >resources to >accomplish, but successfully distributes to the other machines. I use >firefox, chromium, and libreoffice. Occasionally portage wants to >upgrade >more than one of these at a time, which I discover by running emerge >—pretend. On those occasions, I’ve learned that I run out of >resources >and builds fail. So I just temporarily mask all but one of those >updates, >do the upgrade, unmask one of the masked updates, do another upgrade, >and >so on. Works well for me. No builds crash, essentially no swap gets >used, >and I have substantially accelerated compile and ebuild times. > >The tools exist to do what you want to do. If you were so inclined, >you >might even contemplate writing a script to automate what I just >described. > >John Blinka
There's no need to mess around adding and removing masks, just use the - - exclude option. -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
