Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 19:54:09 +0100 From: Olivier Warin <daffy@xview.net> To: cokane@cokane.org Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, David Gilbert <dgilbert@dclg.ca> Subject: Re: portupgrade O(n^m)? Message-ID: <33BBE265-A5B1-4F82-BF41-84825A7089FC@xview.net> In-Reply-To: <346a80220702141036j29485688gf052be8f4432eed5@mail.gmail.com> References: <17875.18893.789217.224987@canoe.dclg.ca> <200702141255.53501.lists@jnielsen.net> <346a80220702141036j29485688gf052be8f4432eed5@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
daffy@katia:~ %> pkg_info | wc -l =20=
-[19:49]-
917
Really portupgrade becomes clearly not so usable for me after I =20
switch to Xorg 7.2RC which install 300 more packages, my workstation =20
is a xSeries 226 with a Xeon 2,8Ghz 1Go DDR2. So I can imagine what =20
it does on a laptop...
This issue is not only related to portupgrade, pkg_add a new port =20
takes far too long now... and make index each time I upgrade my ports =20=
is awfull too.
"Someone has to do something" (tm)
Regards,
Le 14 f=E9vr. 07 =E0 19:36, Coleman Kane a =E9crit :
> On 2/14/07, John Nielsen <lists@jnielsen.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday 14 February 2007 12:41, David Gilbert wrote:
>> > I have 734 ports installed on my laptop right now. I'm pretty =20
>> sure,
>> > at times, I've had over 1000 ports on my laptop.
>> >
>> > On machine with moderate numbers of ports (most servers seem to =20
>> have
>> > 50 to 200 ports), portupgrade takes a moderate amount of time to =20=
>> start
>> > work. On machines like my laptop, portupgrade seems to take =20
>> much more
>> > time to run. I assume it's solving the dependency graph before it
>> > decides what to upgrade first, but is this truly a O(n^2) =20
>> problem? It
>> > seems like the implemented algorithm is O(n^2).
>>
>> Just a "me too". I noticed a huge increase in time for portupgrade =20=
>> when I
>> started using the modular Xorg ports tree and upgraded to X.org =20
>> 7.2RC. The
>> number of installed ports on my machine went from just over 300 to =20=
>> well
>> over
>> 600 as a result of the upgrade. Specifying small numbers of ports =20
>> (without
>> globbing) to portupgrade doesn't seem to take much more time,
>> but "portupgrade -a" or anything similar takes forever now. If =20
>> there is an
>> optimization to be made there it would be good to do it before =20
>> modular
>> xorg
>> hits the official tree.
>>
>> JN
>
>
> I've also had this problem. I have found that if I perform a =20
> "portsdb -U &&
> pkgdb -F" every time following a cvsup that portupgrade doesn't try =20=
> to go
> through the full ports indexing steps again.
>
> It is still slow, and any improvement that can be made should be. =20
> It is
> already a significant enough pain that most ports build in a =20
> shorter amount
> of time than it takes portupgrade to update its database.
>
> --
> Coleman Kane
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-=20
> unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
--
Olivier Warin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?33BBE265-A5B1-4F82-BF41-84825A7089FC>