On 05/02/2013 02:47 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 01:15:58PM -0400, Michael Mol wrote: >> On 05/02/2013 12:58 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 12:33:37PM -0400, Michael Mol wrote: >>>> On 05/02/2013 12:27 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>> Hi, Gentoo. > >>>>> I've just built libreoffice-3.6.6.2 and it took 2 hours 10 >>>>> minutes on my 2.6 GHz quad core Athlon 2. It used to take about >>>>> an hour. > >>>>> Watching the build, it became evident that the first 50 minutes >>>>> or so was taken up by several hundred mkdir operations (more >>>>> precisely, mkdir -p <long path>). Some of these mkdir's would >>>>> take, perhaps, a minute to execute. All the while, top showed >>>>> make taking 100% of one core. > >>>>> There seems to be something suboptimal here. Has anybody else >>>>> seen this, or does anybody have any ideas how to fix the >>>>> problem? > >>>> Long delays suggest a timeout of some sort. > >>> OK. As a matter of interest, some of the mkdirs executed relatively >>> quickly - perhaps in 0.5 seconds. I never saw the screen whizzing by >>> as I ought to have done, though. > >> Hm. > > >>>> First thing I'd look at is the filesystem underneath, and the disk >>>> underneath that. > >>> My /var is an ext3 LVM partition, doubled up on a RAID-1 disk array. > >> How full is the ext3 partition? What options do you have enabled on it? >> (e.g. dir indexing?) > > root@acm ~ # df /var > Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on > /dev/mapper/vg-var 12385456 1959860 9796580 17% /var > >>> In the middle of the mkdiring, I checked there were enough inodes >>> free (there were). I've no reason to suspect the disk drives might >>> be flaky. > >> Well, you kinda do, now; > > The reason I say this is that building the last ?one/two/three versions > of libreoffice also gave me this grief, but I haven't noticed anything > else amiss. > >> you have evidence that at least some disk access is unusually slow. >> Check dmesg for disk I/O errors (unlikely to be reported at this point; > > Nothing awry in dmesg. > >> I'm sure you checked whether your RAID was in a degraded state), > > cat /proc/mdstat shows everything in order. > >> and run commanded smartctl tests on the disks. > > That I haven't done, yet. > >>>> Second thing I'd look at is to see if permissions checks might be >>>> bouncing through something like kerberos, samba or ldap. Do you >>>> have any single-signon things configured on that machine? > >>> I've not got kerberos or samba installed. I appear to have ldap >>> (whatever that might be ;-). ls -lurt /usr/bin/ldap* shows these >>> binaries were last accessed (?used) on 2012-03-14. > >> It would be more a question of whether they were tied into PAM. > > OK. I'm sadly ignorant about PAM. :-(
If you've just got a single box, it's very unlikely this is your problem. > >>> What exactly do you mean by "single-signon"? > >> Well, that was a slip of the tongue. More "central auth". I was >> wondering if there were any features installed on your system that are >> designed to check authorization against a server somewhere. (i.e. you >> can use an LDAP directory to centrally manage things like users, groups, >> etc.) > > Not that I know of. My machine is a mere desktop connected via a > router/modem to the net. I'd have no reason to install any auth stuff. > >> Technically, single-signon combines authorization checks with persistent >> authentication checks. Examples of this include kerberos, web session >> cookies and some uses of OAuth; once you're authenticated, the mechanism >> ensures you don't need to authenticate to another server in the same >> auth realm so long as your existing session hasn't expired. But this is >> less likely to be related to your problem than something seeking to ask >> a server if you have authorization to access something. > > If this were the case, what would libreoffice's build need to ask that no > other package stumbles over? > My presumption there was that this was a very recent thing, and LO's time-to-build makes it easier to observe. Anyway, floor's open to anyone else who might have an idea.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
