Re: portupgrade and index
From: Kris Kennaway (kris_at_obsecurity.org)
Date: 11/30/04
- Previous message: Conrad J. Sabatier: "Re: portupgrade and index"
- In reply to: Conrad J. Sabatier: "Re: portupgrade and index"
- Next in thread: Kent Stewart: "Re: portupgrade and index"
- Reply: Kent Stewart: "Re: portupgrade and index"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 21:40:13 -0800 To: "Conrad J. Sabatier" <conrads@cox.net>
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.
Kris
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
- Previous message: Conrad J. Sabatier: "Re: portupgrade and index"
- In reply to: Conrad J. Sabatier: "Re: portupgrade and index"
- Next in thread: Kent Stewart: "Re: portupgrade and index"
- Reply: Kent Stewart: "Re: portupgrade and index"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
