From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 1 11:07:53 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org 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 8DDF816A420 for ; Wed, 1 Feb 2006 11:07:53 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from xnooby@gmail.com) Received: from uproxy.gmail.com (uproxy.gmail.com [66.249.92.201]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E939143D53 for ; Wed, 1 Feb 2006 11:07:52 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from xnooby@gmail.com) Received: by uproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id k3so227027ugf for ; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 03:07:51 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type; b=muMajOONv71Sz4MEJJMb890Publ7PYaKpcizVzKKMAPma0vBYZMbBpaTTyX7ndda/klSKnz5xXB09rEJ3GJinfJQwjgOZJbR3LSwg47e7Y+19H4D4WYFS9b8829xaA7Q53IhEURdRvMO+UgY2yRYBakZQIEuH0kk10uwytByUoU= Received: by 10.49.20.3 with SMTP id x3mr1377591nfi; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 02:41:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.48.216.11 with HTTP; Wed, 1 Feb 2006 02:41:04 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 05:41:04 -0500 From: Xn Nooby To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Subject: Why does portsdb -Uu run so long? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 11:07:53 -0000 Since I've gone back to the "old foolproof way" of updating my system, I'm doing a "portsdb -Uu" again - which has always taken forever to run on my various machines. Is there a way to speed it up (without replacing it), or has anyone looked at it to see if it needs rewriting? I worked at a place where a monthly mainframe job ran for 24 hours, and the whole plant had to shutdown while it ran (which wasnt too big a deal since it was on Sunday). When the job started taking 36 hours to run and the original programmer was too busy to fix it, they brought in a consultant t= o help. He re-wrote the job so it ran in 15 minutes. The original programme= r was fired two days later. Since then, I've always been suspicous of jobs that run for long periods of time.