<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Jeremy&#039;s Weblog &#187; portage</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.jolexa.net/tag/portage/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.jolexa.net</link>
	<description>Random thoughts and rants...mostly Linux</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:49:45 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Gentoo Prefix: PORTAGE_TMPDIR on NFS solution.</title>
		<link>http://blog.jolexa.net/2008/07/25/gentoo-prefix-portage_tmpdir-on-nfs-solution/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.jolexa.net/2008/07/25/gentoo-prefix-portage_tmpdir-on-nfs-solution/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2008 15:40:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jeremy Olexa</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[gentoo prefix]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nfs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[portage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jolexa.wordpress.com/?p=37</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Gentoo Prefix allows you to place a &#8220;prefixed environment&#8221; wherever you would like. So, if you want to be able to access your prefix on a NFS network it would make sense to put the prefix in /home for example. I don&#8217;t have any solid numbers but I can imagine that the IO for the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gentoo-alt/prefix/index.xml">Gentoo Prefix</a> allows you to place a &#8220;prefixed environment&#8221; wherever you would like. So, if you want to be able to access your prefix on a NFS network it would make sense to put the prefix in /home for example. I don&#8217;t have any solid numbers but I can imagine that the IO for the nfs server is pretty high when emerging. I would rather not suffer the penalties of compile on NFS but also I WOULD like to access PORTAGE_TMPDIR from any host. For the longest time, I was trying to think of a solution for this, that is..to not compile on a NFS share but also be able to see/access PORTAGE_TMPDIR no matter what host I am on in the network. This is a tricky situation that can be solved by setting PORTAGE_TMPDIR to another NFS mount which just happens to reside on the local machine!</p>
<p>I like it!!</p>
<p>My solution is to symlink $EPREFIX/var/tmp to the other NFS mount on the localhost. In my case, /net/$(hostname)/public/tmp.</p>
<p><strong>UPDATE</strong>: The above &#8216;solution&#8217; isn&#8217;t that great. It resulted in a total time increase of about 12%. However, making the symlink point to the local hard drive resulted in a total time decrease of about 31%. (on emerge -e system) Therefore, my latest recommendation is to create the symlink as described originally and override it with PORTAGE_TMPDIR set to the local path.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.jolexa.net/2008/07/25/gentoo-prefix-portage_tmpdir-on-nfs-solution/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Gentoo: Portage&#8217;s new &#8211;jobs feature</title>
		<link>http://blog.jolexa.net/2008/07/24/gentoo-portages-new-jobs-feature/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.jolexa.net/2008/07/24/gentoo-portages-new-jobs-feature/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jul 2008 21:22:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jeremy Olexa</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[gentoo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gentoo prefix]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[portage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jolexa.wordpress.com/?p=17</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Yesterday, zmedico wrote about building multiple packages in parallel with Portage-2.2_rc2. In Gentoo Prefix, we had a sneak peak to this feature, so I have had some time to play with it on my dual-quad core box. Some timing results that you may like: emerge -e system (excluding sys-devel/gcc) As a baseline: With --jobs=1 and [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yesterday, zmedico wrote about <a href="http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/zmedico/2008/07/23/portage_parallel_builds" target="_blank">building multiple packages in parallel</a> with Portage-2.2_rc2. In <a href="http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gentoo-alt/prefix/index.xml">Gentoo Prefix</a>, we had a sneak peak to this feature, so I have had some time to play with it on my dual-quad core box. Some timing results that you may like:</p>
<p>emerge -e system (excluding sys-devel/gcc)</p>
<p>As a baseline:</p>
<blockquote><p><code>With --jobs=1 and MAKEOPTS=16, load-average=9:<br />
real    77m54.290s<br />
user    41m46.086s<br />
sys     29m14.598s</code></p></blockquote>
<p>Because I was skeptical of what <code>--jobs</code> could really do, I decided to start with small number of parallel jobs:</p>
<blockquote><p><code>With --jobs=3, MAKEOPTS=16, load-average=9:<br />
real    61m30.181s<br />
user    42m23.398s<br />
sys     32m32.009s</code></p></blockquote>
<p>While that was running, I noticed a very significant amount of time where my cores were idle, thanks to  the handy little xfce-extra/xfce4-cpugraph widget. So, I turned <code>--jobs</code> up again:</p>
<blockquote><p><code>With --jobs=5, MAKEOPTS=16, load-average=9:<br />
real    58m5.388s<br />
user    42m35.721s<br />
sys     34m46.950s</code></p></blockquote>
<p>Meh, not much improvement there. Surprising, but I suspect that I may be reaching the limits of the parallelization (dependencies, etc).</p>
<blockquote><p><code>With --jobs=10, MAKEOPTS=16, load-average=9:<br />
real    58m9.824s<br />
user    42m43.525s<br />
sys     37m57.234s</code></p></blockquote>
<p>(And actually, a quick visual scan showed load averages staying below 4. Only a few times did I see the average above 8 )</p>
<p>Relying solely on load-average to keep my system usable:</p>
<blockquote><p><code>With --jobs=40, MAKEOPTS=40 load-average=15:<br />
real    58m45.106s<br />
user    43m15.129s<br />
sys     40m47.949s</code></p></blockquote>
<p>The highest load average I visually saw was 23. But my load average was mostly always greater than 4, so this means that my procs are obviously getting used more but I must have hit another bottleneck.</p>
<blockquote><p><code>NOTES:<br />
-emerge -pe system was preformed before each time trial to assume the depgraph was in cache.<br />
-84 packages total<br />
-no ccache/distcc running</code></p></blockquote>
<p>Conclusion: 20 minutes? ~30% speedup. Wow. Good! Quite significant even. Assuming you have cores/procs to spare, go ahead and crank up those <code>--jobs</code>. It is nice to be able to make the <code>./configure</code> step not be the bottleneck anymore. <img src='http://blog.jolexa.net/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';-)' class='wp-smiley' />  I will keep testing and see if I can get the time down even farther (although, unlikely based on the last time trial).</p>
<p>Test requests? Please leave a comment.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.jolexa.net/2008/07/24/gentoo-portages-new-jobs-feature/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

