On 5/12/23 20:08, Peter Humphrey wrote:
On Saturday, 13 May 2023 00:53:49 BST Mark Knecht wrote:
Anyway, I had a couple of thoughts:
1) If it's really a bug then as others have said report it up the
chain and hope for a fix.
https://bugs.gentoo.org/905933
2) If I wanted to solve the
On Saturday, 13 May 2023 00:53:49 BST Mark Knecht wrote:
>Anyway, I had a couple of thoughts:
>
> 1) If it's really a bug then as others have said report it up the
> chain and hope for a fix.
https://bugs.gentoo.org/905933
> 2) If I wanted to solve the problem today(ish) then I'd build
> a
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 10:42 AM Peter Humphrey
wrote:
>
> On Friday, 12 May 2023 17:58:46 BST Jack wrote:
>
> > Again, --load-average tells emerge whether it can start a new
> > job/package, but has no control over how high the load will get based
> > on the already started jobs. If emerge
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 9:59 AM Jack
wrote:
>
> On 2023.05.12 12:23, Mark Knecht wrote:
> [snip .]
> >One interesting point is that the first Gentoo page I found to
> > look at the emerge man page shows LOAD as the value provided
> > to the --load-average option, but nowhere does it
On Friday, 12 May 2023 17:58:46 BST Jack wrote:
> Again, --load-average tells emerge whether it can start a new
> job/package, but has no control over how high the load will get based
> on the already started jobs. If emerge starts new jobs when the load
> is over that specified by
On 2023.05.12 12:23, Mark Knecht wrote:
[snip .]
One interesting point is that the first Gentoo page I found to
look at the emerge man page shows LOAD as the value provided
to the --load-average option, but nowhere does it specify anything
other than it's a floating point value:
I suspect
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 9:08 AM Jack
wrote:
>
> > -j 1
> > -j1 --load-average=40
> > -j1 --load-aveeage=40.0
> > -j1 --load-average=4.0
> > -j1 --load-average=0.4
> > -j10 --load-average=0.4
> >
> > etc., and see what happens?
> --load-average controls whether or not emerge starts another
>
On 2023.05.12 11:27, Mark Knecht wrote:
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 7:27 AM Peter Humphrey
wrote:
>
> On Friday, 12 May 2023 15:13:08 BST Mark Knecht wrote:
>
> > My opinion: load-average probably works, but we are
misunderstanding
> > the documentation.
>
> That's what bothers me the most -
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 7:27 AM Peter Humphrey
wrote:
>
> On Friday, 12 May 2023 15:13:08 BST Mark Knecht wrote:
>
> > My opinion: load-average probably works, but we are misunderstanding
> > the documentation.
>
> That's what bothers me the most - that I have a mental block somewhere.
:(
>
> --
On Friday, 12 May 2023 15:13:08 BST Mark Knecht wrote:
> My opinion: load-average probably works, but we are misunderstanding
> the documentation.
That's what bothers me the most - that I have a mental block somewhere. :(
--
Regards,
Peter.
On Friday, 12 May 2023 15:06:21 BST Michael Cook wrote:
> You can read /usr/share/portage/config/make.conf.example for an
> explanation. All children processes will use that. I can run portage and
> play games on the same system with my settings.
That example says nothing about any of the emerge
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 6:46 AM Peter Humphrey
wrote:
>
> On Friday, 12 May 2023 00:08:03 BST Mark Knecht wrote:
> > On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 3:07 PM Peter Humphrey
> >
> > wrote:
> > > On Thursday, 11 May 2023 17:18:17 BST Mark Knecht wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > The ''problem' is this can easily hit
On Friday, 12 May 2023 14:37:13 BST Jack wrote:
> I still see two separate issues. First, you are saying that emerge
> still launches new jobs when the load is over what is set with
> --load-average. A possible way to test this directly is to run or
> create some job that pushed the load
On 5/12/23 09:46, Peter Humphrey wrote:
On Friday, 12 May 2023 00:08:03 BST Mark Knecht wrote:
On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 3:07 PM Peter Humphrey
wrote:
On Thursday, 11 May 2023 17:18:17 BST Mark Knecht wrote:
The ''problem' is this can easily hit 100% of the cores you have in the
machine if
On Friday, 12 May 2023 00:08:03 BST Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 3:07 PM Peter Humphrey
>
> wrote:
> > On Thursday, 11 May 2023 17:18:17 BST Mark Knecht wrote:
>
>
> > > The ''problem' is this can easily hit 100% of the cores you have in the
> > > machine if not sensibly set.
On 5/12/23 09:16, Peter Humphrey wrote:
On Friday, 12 May 2023 11:09:37 BST Arve Barsnes wrote:
On Fri, 12 May 2023 at 10:34, Peter Humphrey
wrote:
I have said several times that portage is ignoring that setting. I have it
at 40, yet portage kicks off more packages at 72, and continues
On Friday, 12 May 2023 11:09:37 BST Arve Barsnes wrote:
> On Fri, 12 May 2023 at 10:34, Peter Humphrey
wrote:
> > I have said several times that portage is ignoring that setting. I have it
> > at 40, yet portage kicks off more packages at 72, and continues doing so
> > for extended periods - at
On Fri, 12 May 2023 at 10:34, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Friday, 12 May 2023 01:38:52 BST Jack wrote:
> > The --load-average to emerge itself just tells it not to start a new job
> > if the load is above the setting. If there are several large jobs, but
> > all start with single threaded
On Friday, 12 May 2023 09:34:27 BST I wrote:
> > The --load-average in MAKEOPTS gets passed to make, and controls how
> > many processes make starts. If that is set, and the load is still too
> > high, the problem is in make not in emerge. Also, that setting will
> > have no effect if the
On Friday, 12 May 2023 01:38:52 BST Jack wrote:
> Sorry if I'm repeating myself, but as I see it, there are two different
> --load-average settings to consider. I'd have to go back to the
> beginning of the thread to confirm you are setting both of them.
I am also going to repeat myself.
> The
On 5/11/23 23:23, Eldon wrote:
On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 11:07:04PM +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
Once again, --load-average is being ignored. Why is it there? Surely, it must
be to mitigate the worst effects of that N*K, but it isn't doing so.
Take all of the following with a grain of salt and
On 5/11/23 18:07, Peter Humphrey wrote:
On Thursday, 11 May 2023 17:18:17 BST Mark Knecht wrote:
I'm sure you get this but I'm pointing toward the EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS
portage variable which, according to it's page that "defines entries to be
appended to the emerge command line." I suspect they
On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 3:07 PM Peter Humphrey
wrote:
>
> On Thursday, 11 May 2023 17:18:17 BST Mark Knecht wrote:
> > The ''problem' is this can easily hit 100% of the cores you have in the
> > machine if not sensibly set. (You choose what's 'sensible')
>
> Once again, --load-average is being
On Thursday, 11 May 2023 17:18:17 BST Mark Knecht wrote:
> I'm sure you get this but I'm pointing toward the EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS
> portage variable which, according to it's page that "defines entries to be
> appended to the emerge command line." I suspect they are appended, but
> that doesn't
On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 9:03 AM Peter Humphrey
wrote:
>
> On Thursday, 11 May 2023 15:58:20 BST Mark Knecht wrote:
> > Going further, this page states:
> >
> > "The load average value is the same as displayed by top or uptime, and
for
> > an N-core system, a load average of N.0 would be a 100%
On Thursday, 11 May 2023 15:58:20 BST Mark Knecht wrote:
> Going further, this page states:
>
> "The load average value is the same as displayed by top or uptime, and for
> an N-core system, a load average of N.0 would be a 100% load. Another rule
> of thumb here is to set X.Y=N*0.9 which will
On Thursday, 11 May 2023 14:45:26 BST Mark Knecht wrote:
> OK, this is a bit of a weird thing for me to ask you to try but this page
> on emerge:
>
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS
>
> says pretty clearly that "--load-average X.Y" should be a floating point
> number so try it
Going further, this page states:
"The load average value is the same as displayed by top or uptime, and for
an N-core system, a load average of N.0 would be a 100% load. Another rule
of thumb here is to set X.Y=N*0.9 which will limit the load to 90%, thus
maintaining system responsiveness."
So,
On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 6:34 AM Peter Humphrey
wrote:
>
> On Monday, 8 May 2023 11:20:45 BST Neil Bothwick wrote:
>
> > Maybe you should take this to bgo where it can be flagged for the
portage
> > devs to look at, just keep us posted on the outcome.
>
> So far, I've just been asked whether I
On Monday, 8 May 2023 11:20:45 BST Neil Bothwick wrote:
> Maybe you should take this to bgo where it can be flagged for the portage
> devs to look at, just keep us posted on the outcome.
So far, I've just been asked whether I expected something different, to which I
replied "Why is
On Monday, 8 May 2023 11:20:45 BST Neil Bothwick wrote:
> Maybe you should take this to bgo where it can be flagged for the portage
> devs to look at, just keep us posted on the outcome.
https://bugs.gentoo.org/905933
--
Regards,
Peter.
On Sun, 07 May 2023 17:00:16 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> Everybody keeps explaining how the system is supposed to work. I know
> all that, as I said last time.
>
> The problem is that PORTAGE IS NOT DOING WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO.
I see the same at times. I realise that portage can only look at
On Sat, May 06, 2023 at 12:50:08PM +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote
> Second, the two pages contribute actively to the confusion between the emerge
> jobs submitted in parallel by portage and the concurrent tasks that may be
> launched by each of those.
>
> The test:
>
> I ran 'emerge -e @world'
On Sunday, 7 May 2023 15:52:08 BST Michael wrote:
> As I understand it and have so far confirmed on my systems, the --jobs
> directive explained on the emerge man page, places a limit of how many
> different non-dependent packages will be emerged in parallel at any time, by
> any single emerge
On Sunday, 7 May 2023 11:27:14 BST Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Saturday, 6 May 2023 19:18:25 BST Jack wrote:
> > I hope I'm not preaching to the choir, and I have NOT reread the
> > various man pages, but the different options you mention (and some you
> > don't) apply to different parts of the
On Saturday, 6 May 2023 19:18:25 BST Jack wrote:
> Minor point - are you sure ccache isn't affecting your results?
Pretty sure - it isn't installed here. :)
> I hope I'm not preaching to the choir, and I have NOT reread the
> various man pages, but the different options you mention (and some
On 2023.05.06 07:50, Peter Humphrey wrote:
Hello list,
I still don't know how this works. I ran a test over the last two
days, and
the result does not accord with 'man make.conf' nor 'man 1 make'.
First, 'man make.conf' does not state that --load-average, if set,
will
override --jobs,
Hello list,
I still don't know how this works. I ran a test over the last two days, and
the result does not accord with 'man make.conf' nor 'man 1 make'.
First, 'man make.conf' does not state that --load-average, if set, will
override --jobs, as it clearly does.
Second, the two pages
38 matches
Mail list logo
