On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 11:48 AM, Philip Webb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 081019 Grant Edwards wrote:
>> On 2008-10-19, Alan McKinnon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Sunday 19 October 2008 07:25:28 Philip Webb wrote:
>>>> OO 3.0.0 compiled successfully in 2 h 29 m on this Core2 Duo machine,
>>>> but needed 5,3 GB temporary disk space (ok here, but others beware).
>>> The first time I build OOo (on a 686 amd) it took 12 hours.
>>> Now I get similar to you - 2h14
>> On some of my machines it still takes 12+ hours.
>
> On my back-up machine (AMD 2500+ , memory 1 GB : 2003), 2.4.1 took > 5 hr .
> My everyday box (Core 2 Duo 2650 , memory 2 GB (faster FSB) : 2007),
> OO 2.4.1 took 2 h 14 m , so 3.0.0 is a bit more time-consuming;
> the download is much more: 346 MB against c 200 MB
> (that doesn't include the wretched Xulrunner: 75 MB & 15 m to compile).
> I suspect there wb pleas for help from users who run out of disk space:
> earlier versions needed < 3 GB , so this is a big jump,
> esp as I have 2 GB memory (I didn't check how much it was using).
On my system (Core 2 Duo E6600, overclocked to 3GHz) my OOo times were:
Tue Aug 19 20:47:26 2008 >>> app-office/openoffice-2.4.1
merge time: 2 hours, 43 minutes and 43 seconds.
Fri Oct 17 21:22:31 2008 >>> app-office/openoffice-3.0.0
merge time: 1 hour, 33 minutes and 40 seconds.
So the 3.0.0 compile is definitely faster by a lot for me. In 2.4.1 I
was able to use my 4 gig /dev/shm for my portage_tmpdir, but for 3.0.0
i had to comment out and use disk for temporary files. Maybe it could
have been even faster.
Thanks,
Paul
