Hi all,
I was wondering if there are any sane ways to optimize the performance
of a Gentoo system.
Overoptimization (the well known -O9 -fomgomg CFLAGS etc.) tends to
make things unstable, which is of course not what we want. The easy
way out would be buying faster hardware, but that is usually
Patrick Lauer wrote:
Hi all,
I was wondering if there are any sane ways to optimize the performance
of a Gentoo system.
Overoptimization (the well known -O9 -fomgomg CFLAGS etc.) tends to
make things unstable, which is of course not what we want. The easy
way out would be buying faster
On Thursday 15 December 2005 14:43, Francesco Riosa wrote:
Some upstreams, mostly media related but also unsuspectable like MySQL,
use and test their apps with high optimizations.
Not exactly true.. many media related upstreams forces ricing flags
(-fomg-so-fast) on packages, but that does not
Patrick Lauer posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted
below, on Thu, 15 Dec 2005 13:48:05 +0100:
I was wondering if there are any sane ways to optimize the performance
of a Gentoo system.
This really belongs on user, or perhaps on the appropriate purposed list,
desktop or hardened or whatever,
No, only the config files that are in a stage 3 should be left, some of
those will be edited and some will have been upgraded so they should be
left. It would be like emerge --unmerge --shallow world to take you
back the that original state so then any major changes could be made
without
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Patrick Lauer wrote:
| On Thu, 2005-12-15 at 07:43 -0700, Duncan wrote:
|This really belongs on user, or perhaps on the appropriate purposed list,
|desktop or hardened or whatever, not on devel. That said, some
|comments... (I can't resist. g)
|
|
On Thu, 2005-12-15 at 13:48 +0100, Patrick Lauer wrote:
I was wondering if there are any sane ways to optimize the performance
of a Gentoo system.
for package in $system_packages; do
profile_application $package
eliminate_bottlenecks $package
submit_patch_upstream
On Thu, 2005-12-15 at 14:43 +0100, Francesco Riosa wrote:
having more than one disk or a lot of memory add very interesting
addition, read raid 0 (stripe) or tmpfs for working data that does'nt
need a backup fex: $PORTIR, /var/tmp ...
tmpfs has miserable performance when larger than RAM iirc -
On Thursday 15 December 2005 16:43, Patrick Lauer wrote:
[talking about -Os if I'm right]
I've seen some reproducable breakage, e.g. KDE doesn't like it at all
Actually, I'm running KDE with -Os right now...
--
Diego Flameeyes Pettenò - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/
Gentoo/ALT lead,
On 12/15/05, Patrick Lauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are there any application-specific tweaks (e.g. use the prefork MPM
with apache2)? [...]
is'n there ab [1] for apache testing ?
Yes, but that's apache specific and is quite hard to use correctly.
Isn't that what you asked?
--
Patrick Lauer wrote:
-user has the risk of many use teh -fomglol flag, it si teh fast0r ;-)
hardened doesn't have much to do with performance (although I'd be
interested what impact - if any - the different security features have!)
fresh of typing (but worked on for few months)
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below,
on Thu, 15 Dec 2005 17:03:59 +0100:
On Thursday 15 December 2005 16:43, Patrick Lauer wrote:
[talking about -Os if I'm right]
I've seen some reproducable breakage, e.g. KDE doesn't like it at all
Actually, I'm running KDE
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 09:13:34AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
CFQ is much worse for a desktop system. I tend to like deadline for
playing games. These can probably make a bit more difference than a new
-fomg-itsofast-and-broken-math added to CFLAGS.
That's funny, i switched from default
On Thursday 15 December 2005 04:48, Patrick Lauer wrote:
Hi all,
I was wondering if there are any sane ways to optimize the performance
of a Gentoo system.
Overoptimization (the well known -O9 -fomgomg CFLAGS etc.) tends to
make things unstable, which is of course not what we want. The easy
Wernfried Haas wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 09:13:34AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
There was a tip in the GWN about
turning on dir_index on an already formatted file system. If formatting
a new one, just use mkfs.ext2 -J -O dir_index /dev/$whatever to create
your file system.
Good
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 08:20:36PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Possible proposal: the current council meeting rules be updated with
one of the following two clauses:
A proxy must not be an existing council member, and any single person
may not be a proxy for more than one person at any
As i sit reading the current list of list emails about GLEP 42 I see
that the topic of Multiple Repos coming up over and over again. I wanted
to ask to see where that support is, and based on what feedback help
move along so that a standard can be produced. So, now with a few short
questions:
/meeting-logs/20051215.txt
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 22:34:05 -0500 Andrew Muraco [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| 2. What choices/options are on the table for this feature?
The big controversy seems to be over whether repositories carry a
unique identifier string (for example, in metadata/repository_id) or
whether it's user-assigned.
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 22:34:05 -0500 Andrew Muraco [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| 2. What choices/options are on the table for this feature?
The big controversy seems to be over whether repositories carry a
unique identifier string (for example, in metadata/repository_id) or
Curtis Napier wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 22:34:05 -0500 Andrew Muraco [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| 2. What choices/options are on the table for this feature?
The big controversy seems to be over whether repositories carry a
unique identifier string (for example, in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 22:34:05 -0500 Andrew Muraco [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| 2. What choices/options are on the table for this feature?
The big controversy seems to be over whether repositories carry a
unique identifier
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 00:36:54 -0500 Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| emerge blar --repo=ciaranmssekritrepo
|
| This accomplishes the same thing, except I get to name the repo
| whatever I wish, and you lose the ability to specify repositories in
| DEPEND.
...and it stops you from being able
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 00:36:54 -0500 Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| emerge blar --repo=ciaranmssekritrepo
|
| This accomplishes the same thing, except I get to name the repo
| whatever I wish, and you lose the
Il giorno sab, 03-12-2005 alle 21:23 +0900, Jason Stubbs ha scritto:
Not really necessary. He has an ebuild that says =kde-3.4.0* =xorg-x11-6.7*
which pulls in kde first which then pulls in xorg-x11 which portage
resolves to xorg-x11-6.8 after which portage processes xorg-x11-6.7* to
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 07:41:22PM -0600, Brian Harring wrote:
snip comments on parent emerge not killing child emerge
Either way, here's the issue, atexit registers work fine across forks,
portage.portagexit is registered prior to portage_exec.cleanup, so the
main portage pid sits there and
Brian Harring wrote:
So... thoughts? I'm not much for making portage depend on tarsync
just for emerge-webrsync improvements, would rather chunk the bugger
out.
How about runtime detection?
Marius
--
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Carsten Lohrke wrote:
On Thursday 15 December 2005 13:05, Marius Mauch wrote:
package.keywords isn't better or worse than ACCEPT_KEYWORDS, it's just
different in its behavior.
I disagree. ACCEPT_KEYWORDS is problematic for (new) users, because of its
behaviour.
problematic != worse
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 00:35:07 -0500 Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| I've been trying to sit in #gentoo more often ( I figured insanity
| would be a good excuse for my crummy grades ) and I am scared by the
| fact that people still walk in and try using ACCEPT_KEYWORDS=~blar
| to emerge
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 00:35:07 -0500 Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| I've been trying to sit in #gentoo more often ( I figured insanity
| would be a good excuse for my crummy grades ) and I am scared by the
| fact that people still walk in
On a related matter, maybe it would be a good idea to change the text in
make.conf about ACCEPT_KEYWORDS.
# Advanced Masking
#
#
# Gentoo is using a new masking system to allow for easier stability testing
# on packages. KEYWORDS are used in ebuilds to mask and unmask packages
On Thursday 15 December 2005 14:13, Alec Joseph Warner wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 00:35:07 -0500 Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| I've been trying to sit in #gentoo more often ( I figured insanity
| would be a good excuse for my crummy
32 matches
Mail list logo
