Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 21:58:45 -0800 From: Kent Stewart <kstewart@owt.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: portupgrade and index Message-ID: <200411292158.45468.kstewart@owt.com> In-Reply-To: <20041130054013.GB67455@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <000501c4d68f$74a82320$0400a8c0@satellite> <20041129232747.528fdce4@dolphin.local.net> <20041130054013.GB67455@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 > > <kris@obsecurity.org> > > > > 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. Kent -- Kent Stewart Richland, WA http://users.owt.com/kstewart/index.html
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200411292158.45468.kstewart>