From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 30 13:23:50 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C34416A4CE for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:23:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com (out2.smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0C9043D6B for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:23:49 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com) Received: from frontend2.messagingengine.com (frontend2.internal [10.202.2.151]) by frontend1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ED87C3C78C for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 08:23:46 -0500 (EST) X-Sasl-enc: AS1Pm4tIJFIhVYhw/wkypg 1101821024 Received: from gumby.localhost (unknown [80.41.101.165]) by frontend2.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D567D570125 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 08:23:44 -0500 (EST) From: RW To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:24:41 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 References: <000501c4d68f$74a82320$0400a8c0@satellite> <20041130054013.GB67455@xor.obsecurity.org> <200411292158.45468.kstewart@owt.com> In-Reply-To: <200411292158.45468.kstewart@owt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200411301324.41892.list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com> Subject: Re: portupgrade and index X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:23:50 -0000 On Tuesday 30 November 2004 05:58, Kent Stewart wrote: > On Monday 29 November 2004 09:40 pm, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 11:27:47PM -0600, Conrad J. Sabatier wrote: > > > On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 19:57:34 -0800, Kris Kennaway > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 10:48:29PM -0500, dave wrote: > > > > > Hello, > > > > > I've got a box that runs portupgrade to keep the most > > > > > current ports. > > > > > I've lately switched to make fetchindex vs. portsdb -uU which > > > > > goes much faster. My problem is whenever i do a make search for > > > > > a port the index.5 file is regenerated and that takes an > > > > > extremely long time. I was wondering if this is normal > > > > > behavior, and what if anything i could do to speed it up? > > > > > > > > make fetchindex > > > > > > > > Kris > > > > > > You can also increase the concurrency of "portsdb -U"/"make index" > > > by setting INDEX_JOBS in /etc/make.conf. The default number of > > > parallel jobs is 2. Increasing this to, say, 8, will save some > > > time in building the index. > > > > In my testing 4 helped on a dual SMP machine but 8 didn't, because > > the process was I/O bound already at 4. > > There isn't a "make index" that can compete with downloading an > INDEX.bz2. I timed a make fetchindex and it required all of 11 seconds > on my DSL line. That would work out to around 3 minutes on a dial up. I don't think anyone in this sub-thread has read the original question correctly. As I understand it he saying that "make search" generates a new index despite having already run "make fetchindex".