On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 04:21:32PM +0200, Michel Talon wrote:
[...]
>
> Thanks a lot for this very interesting measurement. I note that using
> parallel makes takes 18 minutes at best and 20 minutes at worst, while
> build_index takes 26 minutes. I suppose parallel make runs faster because
> more
On Sat, Sep 30, 2006 at 02:46:36PM -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote:
[...]
>
> The only situation where you might reasonably expect to see something
> approaching a factor of 2 speed improvement is if your ports tree is
> on a striped or mirrored device on separate controllers, so 2 reads
> can be compl
On Sat, Sep 30, 2006 at 03:49:51PM +0200, Michel Talon wrote:
> Kris Kennaway said:
>
> > FYI, I'm not sure if the python version is parallelizable, but you do
> > get a small benefit from using parallelized 'make index' builds (via
> > INDEX_JOBS) on a typical SMP machine.
>
> My script runs pa
Le Sam 30 sep 06 à 15:39:13 +0200, Michel Talon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
écrivait :
> Also perhaps my disk is faster
>
> niobe% diskinfo -t /dev/ad0
> ...
> Transfer rates:
> outside: 102400 kbytes in 2.092096 sec =48946 kbytes/sec
> middle:102400 kbytes in 2.4290
Kris Kennaway said:
> FYI, I'm not sure if the python version is parallelizable, but you do
> get a small benefit from using parallelized 'make index' builds (via
> INDEX_JOBS) on a typical SMP machine.
My script runs parallel makes, of the order of ten simultaneous makes.
You can see them, runn
> It took longer on my P4 3.6GHz:
>
> The tree (15689ports) takes 2789.84287214 seconds to explore.
> Now computing the recursively extended dependencies.
> Took 3.02815794945 seconds.
> Now converting to packages and sorting.
> Last phase takes 4.7659368515 seconds.
> Total time spent: 2800.9
Michel Talon wrote:
> Hello,
>
> based on the documentation in
> http://www.lpthe.jussieu.fr/~talon/freebsdports.html
Why, thank you *so* much for not even mentioning my name and giving me
any credit at all for writing FreeBSD::Portindex, a program that you
mention, but state that cannot even be
On Sat, Sep 30, 2006 at 12:25:19AM +0200, Thierry Thomas wrote:
> Le Ven 29 sep 06 ? 19:21:22 +0200, Michel Talon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ?crivait?:
> > Hello,
>
> Hi,
>
> > i have written yet another index builder in python, which can be found here:
>
Le Ven 29 sep 06 à 19:21:22 +0200, Michel Talon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
écrivait :
> Hello,
Hi,
> i have written yet another index builder in python, which can be found here:
> http://www.lpthe.jussieu.fr/~talon/build_index.py
> I think it works relatively well and fast, and ca
On Sat, Sep 30, 2006 at 06:14:26AM +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-Sep-29 19:21:22 +0200, Michel Talon wrote:
> >timings (*) one gets. On my machine, a P4 3Ghz, oldish, it takes 23 minutes
> >to
> >complete building the INDEX, but the python script doesn't run more than 1
> >minute. Ever
Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-Sep-29 19:21:22 +0200, Michel Talon wrote:
>> timings (*) one gets. On my machine, a P4 3Ghz, oldish, it takes 23 minutes
>> to
>> complete building the INDEX, but the python script doesn't run more than 1
>> minute. Everything else is IO, i think. So one cannot
On Fri, 2006-Sep-29 19:21:22 +0200, Michel Talon wrote:
>timings (*) one gets. On my machine, a P4 3Ghz, oldish, it takes 23 minutes to
>complete building the INDEX, but the python script doesn't run more than 1
>minute. Everything else is IO, i think. So one cannot expect any performance
>improvem
Hello,
based on the documentation in
http://www.lpthe.jussieu.fr/~talon/freebsdports.html
i have written yet another index builder in python, which can be found here:
http://www.lpthe.jussieu.fr/~talon/build_index.py
I think it works relatively well and fast, and can provide building blocks for
13 matches
Mail list logo
