Re: [gentoo-user] is multi-core really worth it?

On 2017-12-06 16:34, Alan McKinnon wrote: And just to round off a mostly pointless discussion with little real merit, the really stupid thing about portage is why oh why are ports and distfiles in /usr? I'm really surprised that someone recognized this or may be does question this.

Re: [gentoo-user] is multi-core really worth it?

On 06/12/17 15:34, Alan McKinnon wrote: > Those guidelines you mention about what /tmp and /var/tmp are "for" are > probably from the FHS. On the whole, I tend to agree they are good ideas > but the proper wording is more like this (from memory, being far too > lazy after a day's work to actually

Re: [gentoo-user] is multi-core really worth it?

On 06/12/17 15:34, Alan McKinnon wrote: > - contents of /tmp are not expected to survive the invocation of the > program that created them > - contents of /var/tmp are not expected to survive a reboot That sounds completely wrong, actually. The contents of /var/tmp are expected to survive a

Re: [gentoo-user] is multi-core really worth it?

On 06/12/2017 15:29, Wols Lists wrote: > On 05/12/17 21:56, Neil Bothwick wrote: >> On Tue, 05 Dec 2017 10:09:56 +, Peter Humphrey wrote: >> >>> $ grep tmpfs /etc/fstab >>> tmpfs /var/tmp/portage tmpfs >>> noatime,uid=portage,gid=portage,mode=0775 0 0 >>> tmpfs /tmp

Re: [gentoo-user] is multi-core really worth it?

On 05/12/17 21:56, Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Tue, 05 Dec 2017 10:09:56 +, Peter Humphrey wrote: > >> $ grep tmpfs /etc/fstab >> tmpfs /var/tmp/portage tmpfs >> noatime,uid=portage,gid=portage,mode=0775 0 0 >> tmpfs /tmp tmpfs >> noatime,nosuid,nodev,noexec,mode=1777

Re: [gentoo-user] is multi-core really worth it?

On Tue, 05 Dec 2017 10:09:56 +, Peter Humphrey wrote: > $ grep tmpfs /etc/fstab > tmpfs /var/tmp/portage tmpfs > noatime,uid=portage,gid=portage,mode=0775 0 0 > tmpfs /tmp tmpfs > noatime,nosuid,nodev,noexec,mode=1777 0 0 Or you could set PORTAGE_TMPDIR to /tmp

Re: [gentoo-user] is multi-core really worth it?

On Tuesday, 5 December 2017 13:57:38 GMT Wols Lists wrote: > I've just had a long thread with someone on the SUSE list who refuses to > believe that the "twice ram" rule ever existed. > > This despite someone else actually describing the algorithm (from which > one can see where the rule comes

Re: [gentoo-user] is multi-core really worth it?

On 05/12/17 13:07, Peter Humphrey wrote: >> (My new system when I get it working maxes out at 64GB ram so I'll have >> > 256GB swap and (currently) 16GB ram) > I've halved my original 4GB swap to 2GB since it never seems to be used. I'm > not brave enough to do away with it altogether though.

Re: [gentoo-user] is multi-core really worth it?

On Tuesday, 5 December 2017 10:46:43 GMT Wols Lists wrote: > On 05/12/17 10:09, Peter Humphrey wrote: > >> I assume using a ramdisk would help with this? I wouldn't want to do a > >> > >> > SSD as I assume it would excessively wear by doing compiles. > > > > I use tmpfs, like this: > > > > $

Re: [gentoo-user] is multi-core really worth it?

On Tuesday, 5 December 2017 11:13:53 GMT Raffaele Belardi wrote: > Wols Lists wrote: > >> If a tmpfs fills up, the excess gets swapped out, but with 32GB RAM here > >> I > >> haven't yet seen any swap used at all - not even in an emerge -e world. > > > > Same here. Note that tmpfs defaults to

Re: [gentoo-user] is multi-core really worth it?

Wols Lists wrote: >> >> If a tmpfs fills up, the excess gets swapped out, but with 32GB RAM here I >> haven't yet seen any swap used at all - not even in an emerge -e world. > > Same here. Note that tmpfs defaults to half ram, so that would give you > a 16GB /var/tmp/portage. With 16GB ram here,

Re: [gentoo-user] is multi-core really worth it?

On 05/12/17 10:09, Peter Humphrey wrote: >> I assume using a ramdisk would help with this? I wouldn't want to do a >> > SSD as I assume it would excessively wear by doing compiles. > I use tmpfs, like this: > > $ grep tmpfs /etc/fstab > tmpfs /var/tmp/portage tmpfs

Re: [gentoo-user] is multi-core really worth it?

On Tuesday, 5 December 2017 04:11:17 GMT taii...@gmx.com wrote: > On my 16 core opteron I have to do -j32 or sometimes -j64 to be using > everything all the time, is this normal? If I don't do this it won't be > pegged at 100% all the time. On my 12-thread i7 I have -j24 -l60. Most times it's

Re: [gentoo-user] is multi-core really worth it?

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 10:11 PM, taii...@gmx.com wrote: > On my 16 core opteron I have to do -j32 or sometimes -j64 to be using > everything all the time, is this normal? If I don't do this it won't be > pegged at 100% all the time. > I use a ramdisk and anything over -j${NCPU}

Re: [gentoo-user] is multi-core really worth it?

On my 16 core opteron I have to do -j32 or sometimes -j64 to be using everything all the time, is this normal? If I don't do this it won't be pegged at 100% all the time. I assume using a ramdisk would help with this? I wouldn't want to do a SSD as I assume it would excessively wear by doing

Re: [gentoo-user] is multi-core really worth it?

On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 09:57:29 +0100, David Haller wrote: > Hm. What's this EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS though? ;)) And > how can I override them if not wanted? .oO( gotta read up on that )Oo. man make.conf man emerge emerge --ignore-default-opts -- Neil Bothwick The trouble with life is that you are

Re: [gentoo-user] is multi-core really worth it?

On Wednesday, November 22, 2017 3:34:56 PM CET Wols Lists wrote: > On 22/11/17 14:11, Tsukasa Mcp_Reznor wrote: > > You won't get build failures or dependency problems, portage is built to > > handle emerging multiple packages that do not depend on each other > > simultaneously. > > it will not

Re: [gentoo-user] is multi-core really worth it?

On 22/11/17 14:11, Tsukasa Mcp_Reznor wrote: > > You won't get build failures or dependency problems, portage is built to > handle emerging multiple packages that do not depend on each other > simultaneously. > it will not ever build a dependency and the main program at the same time. Are you

Re: [gentoo-user] is multi-core really worth it?

From: Raffaele Belardi <raffaele.bela...@st.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 8:12 AM To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] is multi-core really worth it? Jeremi Piotrowski wrote: > That being said: if you do a world rebuild you will have lots of packages >

Re: [gentoo-user] is multi-core really worth it?

On Wednesday, November 22, 2017 2:12:31 PM CET Raffaele Belardi wrote: > Jeremi Piotrowski wrote: > > That being said: if you do a world rebuild you will have lots of packages > > that spend ~40 seconds doing their autoconf run, only to build 2-3 sources > > files. On an 8-core machine at work, I

Re: [gentoo-user] is multi-core really worth it?

Jeremi Piotrowski wrote: > That being said: if you do a world rebuild you will have lots of packages > that spend ~40 seconds doing their autoconf run, only to build 2-3 sources > files. On an 8-core machine at work, I get good results using parallel > emerge jobs (emerge -jX). For your 6-core AMD

Re: [gentoo-user] is multi-core really worth it?

On Wednesday, 22 November 2017 08:57:29 GMT David Haller wrote: > Hello, > > On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, J. Roeleveld wrote: > >On Wednesday, November 22, 2017 8:48:08 AM CET David Haller wrote: > >> So, your emerge is mostly IO and "emerge"-threads bound. Solution: > >> adjust your build-threads[1],

Re: [gentoo-user] is multi-core really worth it?

Hello, On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, J. Roeleveld wrote: >On Wednesday, November 22, 2017 8:48:08 AM CET David Haller wrote: >> So, your emerge is mostly IO and "emerge"-threads bound. Solution: >> adjust your build-threads[1], and then adjust your emerge jobs! See >> '--jobs' in 'man emerge'. Can't find

Re: [gentoo-user] is multi-core really worth it?

Hello, On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Jeremi Piotrowski wrote: >That being said: if you do a world rebuild you will have lots of packages that (even without the fetch) spend 40 seconds setting up the emerge (unpack, prepare (plus eautoreconf))... >that spend ~40 seconds doing their autoconf run, only to

Re: [gentoo-user] is multi-core really worth it?

On Wednesday, November 22, 2017 8:48:08 AM CET David Haller wrote: > Hello, > > On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Raffaele Belardi wrote: > >rebuilding system and world with gcc-7.2.0 on a 6-core AMD CPU I have > >the impression that most of the ebuilds limit parallel builds to 1, 2 > >or 3 threads. > > Most

Re: [gentoo-user] is multi-core really worth it?

On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 08:26:01 +0100, Jeremi Piotrowski wrote: > That being said: if you do a world rebuild you will have lots of > packages that spend ~40 seconds doing their autoconf run, only to build > 2-3 sources files. On an 8-core machine at work, I get good results > using parallel emerge

Re: [gentoo-user] is multi-core really worth it?

Hello, On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Raffaele Belardi wrote: >rebuilding system and world with gcc-7.2.0 on a 6-core AMD CPU I have >the impression that most of the ebuilds limit parallel builds to 1, 2 >or 3 threads. Most should build with "many" cores, but some might be limited, but ... >I'm aware it

Re: [gentoo-user] is multi-core really worth it?

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 07:52:54AM +0100, Raffaele Belardi wrote: > Hi, > > rebuilding system and world with gcc-7.2.0 on a 6-core AMD CPU I have the > impression that > most of the ebuilds limit parallel builds to 1, 2 or 3 threads. I'm aware it > is only an > impression, I did not spend the

Re: [gentoo-user] is multi-core really worth it?

Hello, On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 12:52 AM, Raffaele Belardi wrote: > Hi, > > rebuilding system and world with gcc-7.2.0 on a 6-core AMD CPU I have the > impression that > most of the ebuilds limit parallel builds to 1, 2 or 3 threads. I'm aware it > is only an >

[gentoo-user] is multi-core really worth it?

Hi, rebuilding system and world with gcc-7.2.0 on a 6-core AMD CPU I have the impression that most of the ebuilds limit parallel builds to 1, 2 or 3 threads. I'm aware it is only an impression, I did not spend the night monitoring the process, but nevertheless every time I checked the load was