Shouldn't you be using sdparm, and not hdparm for your sata drives?
On 1/23/06, gentoo-performance+help@gentoo.org <
gentoo-performance+help@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> Topics (messages 32 throught 61):
>
> [gentoo-performance]
> 32 - ??? <bolotov-bag@rambler.ru>
>
> [gentoo-performance] gentoo-performance
> 33 - Ken Robbins <gatliffe@yahoo.com>
>
> [gentoo-performance] gentoo-performance
> 34 - lnxg33k <lnxg33k@gmail.com>
>
> [gentoo-performance] gentoo-performance
> 35 - Chris <chris@services-4u.net>
>
> [gentoo-performance] gentoo-performance
> 36 - lnxg33k <lnxg33k@gmail.com>
>
> [gentoo-performance] gentoo-performance
> 37 - Alex Efros <powerman@powerman.asdfGroup.com>
>
> [gentoo-performance] gentoo-performance
> 38 - Kyle Lutze <kyle@randomvoids.com>
>
> [gentoo-performance] gentoo-performance
> 39 - Christopher Bergström <cbergstrom@netsyncro.com>
>
> [gentoo-performance] gentoo-performance
> 40 - Jeremy Brake <gentoolists@lunatic.net.nz>
>
> [gentoo-performance] gentoo-performance
> 41 - lnxg33k <lnxg33k@gmail.com>
>
> [gentoo-performance] gentoo-performance
> 42 - darren kirby <bulliver@badcomputer.org>
>
> [gentoo-performance] gentoo-performance
> 43 - Michael Liesenfelt <mliesenf@inspi.ufl.edu>
>
> [gentoo-performance] gentoo-performance
> 44 - Christopher Bergström <cbergstrom@netsyncro.com>
>
> [gentoo-performance] gentoo-performance
> 45 - Alec Warner <warnera6@egr.msu.edu>
>
> [gentoo-performance] gentoo-performance
> 46 - Jeremy Brake <gentoolists@lunatic.net.nz>
>
> [gentoo-performance] gentoo-performance
> 47 - darren kirby <bulliver@badcomputer.org>
>
> [gentoo-performance] unsubscribe
> 48 - "Matthew Coulson" <MCoulson@expressreinforcements.co.uk>
> 53 - Alden Huang <alden.huang@gmail.com>
> 55 - Geisel Sierote <geisel@4up.com.br>
>
> [gentoo-performance] gentoo-performance
> 49 - Bill Roberts <billbalt@eyeofthequark.com>
>
> [gentoo-performance] gentoo-performance
> 50 - Christopher Bergström <cbergstrom@netsyncro.com>
>
> [gentoo-performance] gentoo-performance (sync speedups)
> 52 - lnxg33k <lnxg33k@gmail.com>
>
> [gentoo-performance] gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org
> 54 - checl <check@check.ath.cx>
>
> [gentoo-performance] How to unsubscribe
> 56 - Oopsz <oopsz@tripadelic.com>
>
> [gentoo-performance] gentoo-performance (sync speedups)
> 57 - Alec Warner <warnera6@egr.msu.edu>
>
> [gentoo-performance] gentoo-performance (sync speedups)
> 58 - lnxg33k <lnxg33k@gmail.com>
>
> [gentoo-performance] How to get Maximum performance in Graphics on Nvidia
> Drivers
> 59 - XFry <xfry@yandex.ru>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi my first gentoo performance came today but it way only a header no body
> what up with that?
>
>
> *Powered by Gentoo Linux*
> Anything free is worth saving up for-Shadow the cat
>
> ------------------------------
> Yahoo! Photos
> Ring in the New Year with Photo Calendars<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/photos/*http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/photos/evt=38087/*http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph//page?.file=calendar_splash.html&.dir=>.
> Add photos, events, holidays, whatever.
>
>
> Ken Robbins wrote:
> > Hi my first gentoo performance came today but it way only a header no
> body what up with that?
> >
> <snip>
>
> Mine too and I've been listening for a while. I think this ML may be dead
> ...
> *pokes the darkness*
> --
> gentoo-performance@gentoo.org mailing list
>
> funny that a "high performance linux" has a dead performance ML... LOL
>
>
> lnxg33k wrote:
>
> > Ken Robbins wrote:
> >
> >> Hi my first gentoo performance came today but it way only a header no
> >> body what up with that?
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Mine too and I've been listening for a while. I think this ML may be
> > dead ... *pokes the darkness*
>
> --
> gentoo-performance@gentoo.org mailing list
>
> Chris wrote:
> > funny that a "high performance linux" has a dead performance ML... LOL
> <snip>
>
> Could be evidence that the "ricer" crowd doesn't read? (i.e. they post to
> more
> generic lists or use other mediums instead of something specific for their
> needs)
> --
> gentoo-performance@gentoo.org mailing list
>
> Hi!
>
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 03:30:29AM +0100, Chris wrote:
> > > Mine too and I've been listening for a while. I think this ML may be
> > > dead ... *pokes the darkness*
> > funny that a "high performance linux" has a dead performance ML... LOL
>
> It isn't dead because a lot of attentive listeners subscribed to it... :-)
>
> --
> WBR, Alex.
> --
> gentoo-performance@gentoo.org mailing list
>
> lnxg33k wrote:
> > Chris wrote:
> >
> >> funny that a "high performance linux" has a dead performance ML... LOL
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Could be evidence that the "ricer" crowd doesn't read? (i.e. they post
> > to more generic lists or use other mediums instead of something specific
> > for their needs)
>
> Time to throw in a performance info post.
>
> Has anybody done any tests on the different between the one core and
> dual core opteron processors? I currently have an opteron 242 and a gig
> of ram on a tyan mobo, and I'm curious as to which would allow me to
> compile programs faster, as I lend the systems out to a lot of groups
> that have slow systems
>
> Kyle
> --
> gentoo-performance@gentoo.org mailing list
>
> lnxg33k wrote:
>
> > Chris wrote:
> >
> >> funny that a "high performance linux" has a dead performance ML... LOL
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Could be evidence that the "ricer" crowd doesn't read? (i.e. they post
> > to more generic lists or use other mediums instead of something
> > specific for their needs)
>
> Since we're all here and saying hello.. Someone have a performance
> question or a good tip to add to the list?
>
> The one thing that first pops to my head is some hdparm results I've had
> and if maybe it's either my kernel setup or how I'm testing with hdparm...
>
> Anyhow..
>
> Raptors on SATA (Model Number: WDC WD360GD-00FNA0) (-c3 -u1 -A1
> -W1 -d1 -a256 -M254 -m16 -X70 )
> Kernel config
> CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_SIL=y
>
> There's an alternative driver, but haven't tested it...
>
> hdparm -tT /dev/hde
>
> /dev/hde:
> Timing cached reads: 956 MB in 2.00 seconds = 477.02 MB/sec
> Timing buffered disk reads: 116 MB in 3.03 seconds = 38.26 MB/sec
>
> hdparm -tT --direct /dev/hde
>
> /dev/hde:
> Timing O_DIRECT cached reads: 244 MB in 2.01 seconds = 121.26 MB/sec
> Timing O_DIRECT disk reads: 124 MB in 3.01 seconds = 41.17 MB/sec
>
> Laptop 7k60 (Model Number: HTS726060M9AT00)
> hdparm -tT /dev/hdc
>
> /dev/hdc:
> Timing cached reads: 1980 MB in 2.00 seconds = 989.94 MB/sec
> Timing buffered disk reads: 118 MB in 3.04 seconds = 38.81 MB/sec
>
>
> hdparm -tT --direct /dev/hdc
>
> /dev/hdc:
> Timing O_DIRECT cached reads: 364 MB in 2.02 seconds = 180.54 MB/sec
> Timing O_DIRECT disk reads: 120 MB in 3.04 seconds = 39.42 MB/sec
>
>
> I also can't set the raptors into UDMA6 tried -X70 with no luck..
>
> Any suggestions?
>
> Thanks
>
> C.
> --
> gentoo-performance@gentoo.org mailing list
>
> How about speeding up the wait time on updating the portage cache after
> a sync.. even on my AMD 64 3500 it takes a number of minutes to chug
> through..
> are there any known ways to "vrrmmm" this up a little?
>
> Jeremy
> --
> gentoo-performance@gentoo.org mailing list
>
> Jeremy Brake wrote:
> > How about speeding up the wait time on updating the portage cache after
> > a sync.. even on my AMD 64 3500 it takes a number of minutes to chug
> > through..
> > are there any known ways to "vrrmmm" this up a little?
> >
> > Jeremy
>
> Although not exactly what you're asking, you might want to look at
> RSYNC_EXCLUDEFORM. Cuts down on what is checked during rsync. I assume
> that
> this could also cut down on the cache update time since there would be
> less to
> check? Also cuts down on the amount of space eaten up by portage.
> --
> gentoo-performance@gentoo.org mailing list
>
> quoth the Jeremy Brake:
> > How about speeding up the wait time on updating the portage cache after
> > a sync.. even on my AMD 64 3500 it takes a number of minutes to chug
> > through..
> > are there any known ways to "vrrmmm" this up a little?
>
> +1
>
> Mine sped up for all of a day, but is slow as molasses once again. If I
> did my
> syncs during the day it might even peeve me...
>
> > Jeremy
>
> -d
> --
> darren kirby :: Part of the problem since 1976 :: http://badcomputer.org
> "...the number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more
> expected..."
> - Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson, June 1972
>
>
> lnxg33k wrote:
>
> > Although not exactly what you're asking, you might want to look at
> > RSYNC_EXCLUDEFORM. Cuts down on what is checked during rsync. I assume
> > that this could also cut down on the cache update time since there
> > would be less to check? Also cuts down on the amount of space eaten up
> > by portage.
>
>
> I'll second RSYNC exclusions. It really does speed up syncing especially
> on headless servers which don't need x11-*/*.
>
> --
> Michael Liesenfelt
> University of Florida
> Innovative Nuclear Space Power and Propulsion Institute
>
>
>
> darren kirby wrote:
>
> quoth the Jeremy Brake:
>
> How about speeding up the wait time on updating the portage cache after
> a sync.. even on my AMD 64 3500 it takes a number of minutes to chug
> through..
> are there any known ways to "vrrmmm" this up a little?
>
> +1
>
> Mine sped up for all of a day, but is slow as molasses once again. If I did my
> syncs during the day it might even peeve me...
>
> What kind of hardware are you guys running on? My laptop isn't on cron
> and I do it every couple days or so and it finishes in around 15-30
> minutes.. I've never really paid any attention.. How long is yours taking?
>
> What I am curious about is... what's it really doing when it says 51-52%..
> That 1% seems to take forever..
>
> C.
> -- gentoo-performance@gentoo.org mailing list
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Jeremy Brake wrote:
> > How about speeding up the wait time on updating the portage cache after
> > a sync.. even on my AMD 64 3500 it takes a number of minutes to chug
> > through..
> > are there any known ways to "vrrmmm" this up a little?
> >
> > Jeremy
>
> Well the current problem is that in the 2.0 portage branch the cache
> code sucks. This is fixed in ~arch portage ( the 2.1_pre series ). For
> you users that don't want to upgrade to unstable, you should be able to
> use cdb to speed up the process.
>
> Setting RSYNC_EXCLUDES will not speed up the second half of the --sync (
> the --metadata portion ).
>
> Explanation: The Portage Tree has a ton of ebuilds in it, when you do
> something like emerge -pv <blar> portage used to have to go read each
> ebuild and be like "oh what are the USE flags, the dependencies, etc.."
> This takes a lot of time, especially for something like emerge -uD world
> that may touch thousands of packages.
>
> So to mitigate this issue portage has a "metadata cache" where it stores
> the ebuild metadata so it doesn't have to source each ebuild every time.
> This gives performance increases ( reportedly ) of 100x speed-ups.
>
> However, generating the metadata is time consuming, even on decent
> hardware it will probably take 30-45 minutes. To not piss the users
> off, Gentoo calculates this metadata serve-side and serves it to you
> during sync.
>
> The Rsync portion of emerge --sync is pretty much everything before the
> "updating metadata cache". This should be pretty standard as far as
> time goes on all boxes. However the second portion is where portage has
> to take the generated server-side cache and kind of "meld" it into your
> already existant local cache ( stored in /var/cache/edb/dep for those of
> you whom are curious ). This didn't used to take a bunch of time..until
> KDE split their packages from KDE-monolith to KDE-meta. The X.org
> switch probably won't help much in this area either. Particularly the
> slowdown at 50-52% is due to this portion of the tree.
>
> There is a new cache system in the 2.1 branch of portage, or using cdb,
> or perhaps even an sqlite back-end (patches and modules are out there),
> will help until such time as the 2.1 branch is stablized ( probably not
> too soon ).
>
> - -Alec Warner (antarus)
>
> Disclaimer: I'm not a developer (yet) but I've worked with the portage
> team for some time. Release dates, features, and other things are not
> gauranteed to be correct just because I said so :)
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iQIVAwUBQ9CExWzglR5RwbyYAQLJEhAAj7i2cRVgv1iBfi61mGkn9q1t/K5JEJcv
> zK07bTmMDirviessdKiZVSufXdWV79tW0MDEVqmGI9t+V+uwM77aFbge1VSkEaQB
> RWetuQL8tQRUX1KvQ+ItScVtbqKIAQe/Jn+BwSim05jF3+fF15Z6EpPPKypNLQxK
> 2ef/bcJ91Gctv0xcd6j943uOPFDCt05Ahe06/pQ0wgGdnAcKLOy/RVwDOVfprXim
> AwiVsU4aCxRI056RkEj1VuSwSYQEa91WKpTGv81lZVkRW8LRxkgc7UAydMYGjOY5
> 1prjv2Koyly5ycVvxshKVmLfuaqByY9bBnlklyKDdFW1ZD1udCflCLxmz3GuTCsm
> /FHce+Y9smqq3sF1wV7DYXu9vTnLdBqVBlDq4cEtd5XdgQm3TJ5rUGF2Mepicyhg
> Bg4ibDExDB5eKWCnGU3ioSCd8TY9cdR9ZXxpm6JLGfr9ztog0/vScsIZbj3dS4RH
> WqGklvW0F9N6NjP26WJwtQsmSIZpSJU4yPxneZOdQxGOUfdNPQap+qO+rZaitPKW
> yWaikaiSuecPSul0ithpGnCFttPHrBLyNKNl7aom04Bht4KSdaqzriIL/RylWzHW
> OgazUV9RuVdI8oEx+q3zKzOgvG3dXeL7HNdhH+j9noIyGVa8ouNHWMGfFUc1baxV
> 7eyB1buSeQY=
> =vWqe
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> --
> gentoo-performance@gentoo.org mailing list
>
> Alec Warner wrote:
>
> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >Hash: SHA1
> >
> >Jeremy Brake wrote:
> >
> >
> >>How about speeding up the wait time on updating the portage cache after
> >>a sync.. even on my AMD 64 3500 it takes a number of minutes to chug
> >>through..
> >>are there any known ways to "vrrmmm" this up a little?
> >>
> >>Jeremy
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Well the current problem is that in the 2.0 portage branch the cache
> >code sucks. This is fixed in ~arch portage ( the 2.1_pre series ). For
> >you users that don't want to upgrade to unstable, you should be able to
> >use cdb to speed up the process.
> >
> >Setting RSYNC_EXCLUDES will not speed up the second half of the --sync (
> >the --metadata portion ).
> >
> >Explanation: *snip*
> >
> >
> Thanks Alec, thats a really awesome explaination :)
>
> My server runs a 5am script which does this, so i'm not too worried
> about that machine. For those who are curious, its an Athlon 1800+ on a
> 10Mbit link, and it takes between 1 and 10 mins to process " emerge
> --sync --quiet; emerge -upvD world; glsa-check -t all "
>
> My home pc is on a 2Mbit link, so I only sync when i feel like checking
> for updates, or when I want to install something new. This will take
> minimum of 10 mins just to update the cache most times, sometimes more.
> Being a home pc, I'm happy to have some unstable stuff installed. How
> messy would it be to just run ~amd64 portage? would this work, or do I
> ideally need to make the entire base system ~amd64? (ugh).
>
> Jeremy
>
>
> --
> gentoo-performance@gentoo.org mailing list
>
> quoth the Christopher Bergström:
> > darren kirby wrote:
> > quoth the Jeremy Brake:
> >
> > How about speeding up the wait time on updating the portage cache after
> > a sync.. even on my AMD 64 3500 it takes a number of minutes to chug
> > through..
> > are there any known ways to "vrrmmm" this up a little?
> >
> >
> > +1
> >
> > Mine sped up for all of a day, but is slow as molasses once again. If I
> did
> > my syncs during the day it might even peeve me...
> >
> > What kind of hardware are you guys running on? My laptop isn't on cron
> > and I do it every couple days or so and it finishes in around 15-30
> > minutes.. I've never really paid any attention.. How long is yours
> taking?
>
> It doesn't make a difference what hardware. I have 4 boxes that run gentoo
> (Athlon 2200, Athlon 3200, Apple G4, Sparc U60) and they all run the
> actual
> sync quite fast, but the 50%-51% takes from 5 minutes on the 3200 to 30
> minutes on the G4 and U60.
>
> As I mentioned though, I don't let this bother me as I generally sync
> ~4:00am
> whilst sleeping.
>
> > What I am curious about is... what's it really doing when it says
> 51-52%..
> > That 1% seems to take forever..
> >
> > C.
> > -- gentoo-performance@gentoo.org mailing list
> -d
> --
> darren kirby :: Part of the problem since 1976 :: http://badcomputer.org
> "...the number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more
> expected..."
> - Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson, June 1972
>
>
> unsubscribe
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> Please Note: This e-mail is confidential and may be protected by law.
> This e-mail is intended solely for the named recipient(s). If you receive
> this e-mail in error, please destroy the copy in your possession
> immediately. Please do not disclose the contents to any other person, use
> information contained in it for any purpose, store or copy it. Although
> this e-mail and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus, which
> might affect a computer system into which it is received and opened, Express
> Reinforcements Ltd. can not guarantee this and does not accept
> responsibility for any damage resulting from the use of this e-mail.
> Copyright in this e-mail and any attachments remains with us. Express
> Reinforcements Ltd. Registered in England No.1808624. Head Office:
> Fordwater Trading Estate, Ford Road, Chertsey, Surrey KT16 8HG
> To Visit our website go to http://www.ExpressReinforcements.co.uk
>
> This message has been checked for all known viruses by UUNET delivered
> through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre. For further information
> visit
> http://www.uk.uu.net/products/security/virus/
>
> --
> gentoo-performance@gentoo.org mailing list
>
> >
> > The one thing that first pops to my head is some hdparm results I've had
> > and if maybe it's either my kernel setup or how I'm testing with
> hdparm...
> >
> > Anyhow..
> >
> > Raptors on SATA (Model Number: WDC WD360GD-00FNA0) (-c3 -u1 -A1
> > -W1 -d1 -a256 -M254 -m16 -X70 )
> > Kernel config
> > CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_SIL=y
> >
> > There's an alternative driver, but haven't tested it...
> >
> > hdparm -tT /dev/hde
> >
> > /dev/hde:
> > Timing cached reads: 956 MB in 2.00 seconds = 477.02 MB/sec
> > Timing buffered disk reads: 116 MB in 3.03 seconds = 38.26 MB/sec
> >
> Your times for the raptor seem awfully slow.
>
> Here the SATA settings for my kernel and my hdparm times.
>
> antec ~ # grep SATA /usr/src/linux/.config
> # CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IDE_SATA is not set
> CONFIG_SCSI_SATA=y
> CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_AHCI=y
> # CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_SVW is not set
> # CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_MV is not set
> # CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_NV is not set
> # CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_QSTOR is not set
> # CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_PROMISE is not set
> # CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_SX4 is not set
> # CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_SIL is not set
> # CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_SIL24 is not set
> # CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_SIS is not set
> # CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_ULI is not set
> # CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_VIA is not set
> # CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_VITESSE is not set
> CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_INTEL_COMBINED=y
> antec ~ # hdparm -tT /dev/md0
>
> /dev/md0:
> Timing cached reads: 2776 MB in 2.00 seconds = 1387.91 MB/sec
> Timing buffered disk reads: 398 MB in 3.00 seconds = 132.48 MB/sec
> antec ~ #
>
> Note that this is a RAID0 with two disks, so the buffered disk read time
> is double what you should expect on a normal install.
>
> Good luck.
>
> Bill Roberts
>
>
> Bill Roberts wrote:
>
> The one thing that first pops to my head is some hdparm results I've had
> and if maybe it's either my kernel setup or how I'm testing with hdparm...
>
> Anyhow..
>
> Raptors on SATA (Model Number: WDC WD360GD-00FNA0) (-c3 -u1 -A1
> -W1 -d1 -a256 -M254 -m16 -X70 )
> Kernel config
> CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_SIL=y
>
> There's an alternative driver, but haven't tested it...
>
> hdparm -tT /dev/hde
>
> /dev/hde:
> Timing cached reads: 956 MB in 2.00 seconds = 477.02 MB/sec
> Timing buffered disk reads: 116 MB in 3.03 seconds = 38.26 MB/sec
>
> Your times for the raptor seem awfully slow.
>
> Here the SATA settings for my kernel and my hdparm times.
>
> antec ~ # grep SATA /usr/src/linux/.config
> # CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IDE_SATA is not set
> CONFIG_SCSI_SATA=y
> CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_AHCI=y
> # CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_SVW is not set
> # CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_MV is not set
> # CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_NV is not set
> # CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_QSTOR is not set
> # CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_PROMISE is not set
> # CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_SX4 is not set
> # CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_SIL is not set
> # CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_SIL24 is not set
> # CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_SIS is not set
> # CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_ULI is not set
> # CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_VIA is not set
> # CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_VITESSE is not set
> CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_INTEL_COMBINED=y
> antec ~ # hdparm -tT /dev/md0
>
> /dev/md0:
> Timing cached reads: 2776 MB in 2.00 seconds = 1387.91 MB/sec
> Timing buffered disk reads: 398 MB in 3.00 seconds = 132.48 MB/sec
> antec ~ #
>
> Note that this is a RAID0 with two disks, so the buffered disk read time
> is double what you should expect on a normal install.
>
> I guess I should add that 2nd disk in there then.. Anyhow, I'm bound to
> what appears to be a not-so-friendly controller..
>
> CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_SIL is not set
>
> I'm going to change the sata_sil.c file to enable UDMA6 and I've seen some
> other minor patches as well.. If it all proves stable.. Maybe someone will
> actually get it sent upstream. What's further.. I'm on hardened.. So I think
> you might have some kernel config options I don't have.. I have to look
> again..
>
> Cheers,
>
> C.
> -- gentoo-performance@gentoo.org mailing list
> Thanks Alec Warner for the great explanation. It still seems like by not
> having
> portions of the tree by using EXCLUDEFORM and deleting the local dirs that
> you'd save some time in the --metadata part of sync as less ebuilds are
> available to be checked. Is this simply a wrong misconception?
> --
> gentoo-performance@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>
> --
> gentoo-performance@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>
> --
> gentoo-performance@gentoo.org mailing list
>
> unsubscribe
>
>
>
> Okay guys, stop mailing "unsubscribe" to the list. Instead, send a
> blank message to gentoo-performance+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org
>
> alright?
> --
> gentoo-performance@gentoo.org mailing list
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> lnxg33k wrote:
> > Thanks Alec Warner for the great explanation. It still seems like by not
> > having portions of the tree by using EXCLUDEFORM and deleting the local
> > dirs that you'd save some time in the --metadata part of sync as less
> > ebuilds are available to be checked. Is this simply a wrong
> misconception?
>
> The portion that "updates metadata cache" has nothing to do with what
> ebuilds are in the tree. It simply takes the server-side caches (
> pregenerated ) and sync them into your local cache. You could RSYNC
> exclude the whole tree and this will still happen for every package,
> since the metadata is generated on the server ( and the server has the
> whole tree ).
>
> Now if you were to rsync exclude metadata/ you would reduce the
> - --metadata portion...because it wouldn't happen ;)
>
> - -Alec Warner (antarus)
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iQIVAwUBQ9GCJ2zglR5RwbyYAQLajw/+Mvfu9+0Sfo8nHo7gbNytHRNL1jVI61RD
> /EIiZZwV067X77IP72o0Y7SICRvnooEqtLvQW+rd2c/Kb6W4EtDga94X8EbOrHIm
> 0/IFqg7OqUa/psU6IkaPk959u7UJTnqlWmzluLbqRTx/X03lpjk6n+V4BOTRhcTA
> WHa80quSpd5EkfdFAJ1oWVMn9ck7xSTn3ulzmlznCkLdWK6iR+m+r+wAWMPlcRFG
> xE/Ik5uMVemlWuAElhMoB4xr/2hKfcsu/Egw9F+zVL5+3mGMyygHhELAvTVHU/C9
> jLX3noNFC+xSOesmC0e+l88Uyz2AYPuhg8S+3qciC+4Ax2QkDhhRxwM7lLF6yPBx
> UpDNnTecT1iVuFUhHP08T2GPq8Nyvtzj4oqgjzKq1+l2RdehDM8j0KZrq5ZwDszb
> CdKakVUrVXmMOEp16E48k5/66sulgJ5fNdVubJYNdPwsY2dNJ5MC7wbxSwIT46TD
> 88tYAgco4cH9o4whwL2KZIjCQodKgvNwCnvW3qeXOdD/WqRSvuVbFIZh/+YZMHXi
> KVnWrePS2kwukMiL28oB9fwsJomQpwxCJlhZxuLto7kM1vBhlKLOeFfoZ8gm6mrF
> gBkDwiyV7aNHL4tFgAGtvDPReQhRS4DcN61EVEOYxMxQIKh1lDSFR1UW+j538S9c
> J/7XGJI9CxQ=
> =Qike
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> --
> gentoo-performance@gentoo.org mailing list
>
> Alec Warner wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > lnxg33k wrote:
> >> Thanks Alec Warner for the great explanation. It still seems like by
> not
> >> having portions of the tree by using EXCLUDEFORM and deleting the local
> >> dirs that you'd save some time in the --metadata part of sync as less
> >> ebuilds are available to be checked. Is this simply a wrong
> misconception?
> >
> > The portion that "updates metadata cache" has nothing to do with what
> > ebuilds are in the tree. It simply takes the server-side caches (
> > pregenerated ) and sync them into your local cache. You could RSYNC
> > exclude the whole tree and this will still happen for every package,
> > since the metadata is generated on the server ( and the server has the
> > whole tree ).
> >
> > Now if you were to rsync exclude metadata/ you would reduce the
> > - --metadata portion...because it wouldn't happen ;)
> >
> <snip>
>
> Ah, ok. Hearing it again makes it sound more reasonable. I'll have to
> watch my
> rsync output a bit more closely. Thanks again for the explanation.
> --
> gentoo-performance@gentoo.org mailing list
>
> How to get Maximum performance in Graphics on Nvidia Drivers????
>
>
> --
> gentoo-performance@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>
>
On 1/23/06, gentoo-performance+help@gentoo.org <
gentoo-performance+help@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> Topics (messages 32 throught 61):
>
> [gentoo-performance]
> 32 - ??? <bolotov-bag@rambler.ru>
>
> [gentoo-performance] gentoo-performance
> 33 - Ken Robbins <gatliffe@yahoo.com>
>
> [gentoo-performance] gentoo-performance
> 34 - lnxg33k <lnxg33k@gmail.com>
>
> [gentoo-performance] gentoo-performance
> 35 - Chris <chris@services-4u.net>
>
> [gentoo-performance] gentoo-performance
> 36 - lnxg33k <lnxg33k@gmail.com>
>
> [gentoo-performance] gentoo-performance
> 37 - Alex Efros <powerman@powerman.asdfGroup.com>
>
> [gentoo-performance] gentoo-performance
> 38 - Kyle Lutze <kyle@randomvoids.com>
>
> [gentoo-performance] gentoo-performance
> 39 - Christopher Bergström <cbergstrom@netsyncro.com>
>
> [gentoo-performance] gentoo-performance
> 40 - Jeremy Brake <gentoolists@lunatic.net.nz>
>
> [gentoo-performance] gentoo-performance
> 41 - lnxg33k <lnxg33k@gmail.com>
>
> [gentoo-performance] gentoo-performance
> 42 - darren kirby <bulliver@badcomputer.org>
>
> [gentoo-performance] gentoo-performance
> 43 - Michael Liesenfelt <mliesenf@inspi.ufl.edu>
>
> [gentoo-performance] gentoo-performance
> 44 - Christopher Bergström <cbergstrom@netsyncro.com>
>
> [gentoo-performance] gentoo-performance
> 45 - Alec Warner <warnera6@egr.msu.edu>
>
> [gentoo-performance] gentoo-performance
> 46 - Jeremy Brake <gentoolists@lunatic.net.nz>
>
> [gentoo-performance] gentoo-performance
> 47 - darren kirby <bulliver@badcomputer.org>
>
> [gentoo-performance] unsubscribe
> 48 - "Matthew Coulson" <MCoulson@expressreinforcements.co.uk>
> 53 - Alden Huang <alden.huang@gmail.com>
> 55 - Geisel Sierote <geisel@4up.com.br>
>
> [gentoo-performance] gentoo-performance
> 49 - Bill Roberts <billbalt@eyeofthequark.com>
>
> [gentoo-performance] gentoo-performance
> 50 - Christopher Bergström <cbergstrom@netsyncro.com>
>
> [gentoo-performance] gentoo-performance (sync speedups)
> 52 - lnxg33k <lnxg33k@gmail.com>
>
> [gentoo-performance] gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org
> 54 - checl <check@check.ath.cx>
>
> [gentoo-performance] How to unsubscribe
> 56 - Oopsz <oopsz@tripadelic.com>
>
> [gentoo-performance] gentoo-performance (sync speedups)
> 57 - Alec Warner <warnera6@egr.msu.edu>
>
> [gentoo-performance] gentoo-performance (sync speedups)
> 58 - lnxg33k <lnxg33k@gmail.com>
>
> [gentoo-performance] How to get Maximum performance in Graphics on Nvidia
> Drivers
> 59 - XFry <xfry@yandex.ru>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi my first gentoo performance came today but it way only a header no body
> what up with that?
>
>
> *Powered by Gentoo Linux*
> Anything free is worth saving up for-Shadow the cat
>
> ------------------------------
> Yahoo! Photos
> Ring in the New Year with Photo Calendars<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/photos/*http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/photos/evt=38087/*http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph//page?.file=calendar_splash.html&.dir=>.
> Add photos, events, holidays, whatever.
>
>
> Ken Robbins wrote:
> > Hi my first gentoo performance came today but it way only a header no
> body what up with that?
> >
> <snip>
>
> Mine too and I've been listening for a while. I think this ML may be dead
> ...
> *pokes the darkness*
> --
> gentoo-performance@gentoo.org mailing list
>
> funny that a "high performance linux" has a dead performance ML... LOL
>
>
> lnxg33k wrote:
>
> > Ken Robbins wrote:
> >
> >> Hi my first gentoo performance came today but it way only a header no
> >> body what up with that?
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Mine too and I've been listening for a while. I think this ML may be
> > dead ... *pokes the darkness*
>
> --
> gentoo-performance@gentoo.org mailing list
>
> Chris wrote:
> > funny that a "high performance linux" has a dead performance ML... LOL
> <snip>
>
> Could be evidence that the "ricer" crowd doesn't read? (i.e. they post to
> more
> generic lists or use other mediums instead of something specific for their
> needs)
> --
> gentoo-performance@gentoo.org mailing list
>
> Hi!
>
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 03:30:29AM +0100, Chris wrote:
> > > Mine too and I've been listening for a while. I think this ML may be
> > > dead ... *pokes the darkness*
> > funny that a "high performance linux" has a dead performance ML... LOL
>
> It isn't dead because a lot of attentive listeners subscribed to it... :-)
>
> --
> WBR, Alex.
> --
> gentoo-performance@gentoo.org mailing list
>
> lnxg33k wrote:
> > Chris wrote:
> >
> >> funny that a "high performance linux" has a dead performance ML... LOL
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Could be evidence that the "ricer" crowd doesn't read? (i.e. they post
> > to more generic lists or use other mediums instead of something specific
> > for their needs)
>
> Time to throw in a performance info post.
>
> Has anybody done any tests on the different between the one core and
> dual core opteron processors? I currently have an opteron 242 and a gig
> of ram on a tyan mobo, and I'm curious as to which would allow me to
> compile programs faster, as I lend the systems out to a lot of groups
> that have slow systems
>
> Kyle
> --
> gentoo-performance@gentoo.org mailing list
>
> lnxg33k wrote:
>
> > Chris wrote:
> >
> >> funny that a "high performance linux" has a dead performance ML... LOL
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Could be evidence that the "ricer" crowd doesn't read? (i.e. they post
> > to more generic lists or use other mediums instead of something
> > specific for their needs)
>
> Since we're all here and saying hello.. Someone have a performance
> question or a good tip to add to the list?
>
> The one thing that first pops to my head is some hdparm results I've had
> and if maybe it's either my kernel setup or how I'm testing with hdparm...
>
> Anyhow..
>
> Raptors on SATA (Model Number: WDC WD360GD-00FNA0) (-c3 -u1 -A1
> -W1 -d1 -a256 -M254 -m16 -X70 )
> Kernel config
> CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_SIL=y
>
> There's an alternative driver, but haven't tested it...
>
> hdparm -tT /dev/hde
>
> /dev/hde:
> Timing cached reads: 956 MB in 2.00 seconds = 477.02 MB/sec
> Timing buffered disk reads: 116 MB in 3.03 seconds = 38.26 MB/sec
>
> hdparm -tT --direct /dev/hde
>
> /dev/hde:
> Timing O_DIRECT cached reads: 244 MB in 2.01 seconds = 121.26 MB/sec
> Timing O_DIRECT disk reads: 124 MB in 3.01 seconds = 41.17 MB/sec
>
> Laptop 7k60 (Model Number: HTS726060M9AT00)
> hdparm -tT /dev/hdc
>
> /dev/hdc:
> Timing cached reads: 1980 MB in 2.00 seconds = 989.94 MB/sec
> Timing buffered disk reads: 118 MB in 3.04 seconds = 38.81 MB/sec
>
>
> hdparm -tT --direct /dev/hdc
>
> /dev/hdc:
> Timing O_DIRECT cached reads: 364 MB in 2.02 seconds = 180.54 MB/sec
> Timing O_DIRECT disk reads: 120 MB in 3.04 seconds = 39.42 MB/sec
>
>
> I also can't set the raptors into UDMA6 tried -X70 with no luck..
>
> Any suggestions?
>
> Thanks
>
> C.
> --
> gentoo-performance@gentoo.org mailing list
>
> How about speeding up the wait time on updating the portage cache after
> a sync.. even on my AMD 64 3500 it takes a number of minutes to chug
> through..
> are there any known ways to "vrrmmm" this up a little?
>
> Jeremy
> --
> gentoo-performance@gentoo.org mailing list
>
> Jeremy Brake wrote:
> > How about speeding up the wait time on updating the portage cache after
> > a sync.. even on my AMD 64 3500 it takes a number of minutes to chug
> > through..
> > are there any known ways to "vrrmmm" this up a little?
> >
> > Jeremy
>
> Although not exactly what you're asking, you might want to look at
> RSYNC_EXCLUDEFORM. Cuts down on what is checked during rsync. I assume
> that
> this could also cut down on the cache update time since there would be
> less to
> check? Also cuts down on the amount of space eaten up by portage.
> --
> gentoo-performance@gentoo.org mailing list
>
> quoth the Jeremy Brake:
> > How about speeding up the wait time on updating the portage cache after
> > a sync.. even on my AMD 64 3500 it takes a number of minutes to chug
> > through..
> > are there any known ways to "vrrmmm" this up a little?
>
> +1
>
> Mine sped up for all of a day, but is slow as molasses once again. If I
> did my
> syncs during the day it might even peeve me...
>
> > Jeremy
>
> -d
> --
> darren kirby :: Part of the problem since 1976 :: http://badcomputer.org
> "...the number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more
> expected..."
> - Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson, June 1972
>
>
> lnxg33k wrote:
>
> > Although not exactly what you're asking, you might want to look at
> > RSYNC_EXCLUDEFORM. Cuts down on what is checked during rsync. I assume
> > that this could also cut down on the cache update time since there
> > would be less to check? Also cuts down on the amount of space eaten up
> > by portage.
>
>
> I'll second RSYNC exclusions. It really does speed up syncing especially
> on headless servers which don't need x11-*/*.
>
> --
> Michael Liesenfelt
> University of Florida
> Innovative Nuclear Space Power and Propulsion Institute
>
>
>
> darren kirby wrote:
>
> quoth the Jeremy Brake:
>
> How about speeding up the wait time on updating the portage cache after
> a sync.. even on my AMD 64 3500 it takes a number of minutes to chug
> through..
> are there any known ways to "vrrmmm" this up a little?
>
> +1
>
> Mine sped up for all of a day, but is slow as molasses once again. If I did my
> syncs during the day it might even peeve me...
>
> What kind of hardware are you guys running on? My laptop isn't on cron
> and I do it every couple days or so and it finishes in around 15-30
> minutes.. I've never really paid any attention.. How long is yours taking?
>
> What I am curious about is... what's it really doing when it says 51-52%..
> That 1% seems to take forever..
>
> C.
> -- gentoo-performance@gentoo.org mailing list
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Jeremy Brake wrote:
> > How about speeding up the wait time on updating the portage cache after
> > a sync.. even on my AMD 64 3500 it takes a number of minutes to chug
> > through..
> > are there any known ways to "vrrmmm" this up a little?
> >
> > Jeremy
>
> Well the current problem is that in the 2.0 portage branch the cache
> code sucks. This is fixed in ~arch portage ( the 2.1_pre series ). For
> you users that don't want to upgrade to unstable, you should be able to
> use cdb to speed up the process.
>
> Setting RSYNC_EXCLUDES will not speed up the second half of the --sync (
> the --metadata portion ).
>
> Explanation: The Portage Tree has a ton of ebuilds in it, when you do
> something like emerge -pv <blar> portage used to have to go read each
> ebuild and be like "oh what are the USE flags, the dependencies, etc.."
> This takes a lot of time, especially for something like emerge -uD world
> that may touch thousands of packages.
>
> So to mitigate this issue portage has a "metadata cache" where it stores
> the ebuild metadata so it doesn't have to source each ebuild every time.
> This gives performance increases ( reportedly ) of 100x speed-ups.
>
> However, generating the metadata is time consuming, even on decent
> hardware it will probably take 30-45 minutes. To not piss the users
> off, Gentoo calculates this metadata serve-side and serves it to you
> during sync.
>
> The Rsync portion of emerge --sync is pretty much everything before the
> "updating metadata cache". This should be pretty standard as far as
> time goes on all boxes. However the second portion is where portage has
> to take the generated server-side cache and kind of "meld" it into your
> already existant local cache ( stored in /var/cache/edb/dep for those of
> you whom are curious ). This didn't used to take a bunch of time..until
> KDE split their packages from KDE-monolith to KDE-meta. The X.org
> switch probably won't help much in this area either. Particularly the
> slowdown at 50-52% is due to this portion of the tree.
>
> There is a new cache system in the 2.1 branch of portage, or using cdb,
> or perhaps even an sqlite back-end (patches and modules are out there),
> will help until such time as the 2.1 branch is stablized ( probably not
> too soon ).
>
> - -Alec Warner (antarus)
>
> Disclaimer: I'm not a developer (yet) but I've worked with the portage
> team for some time. Release dates, features, and other things are not
> gauranteed to be correct just because I said so :)
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iQIVAwUBQ9CExWzglR5RwbyYAQLJEhAAj7i2cRVgv1iBfi61mGkn9q1t/K5JEJcv
> zK07bTmMDirviessdKiZVSufXdWV79tW0MDEVqmGI9t+V+uwM77aFbge1VSkEaQB
> RWetuQL8tQRUX1KvQ+ItScVtbqKIAQe/Jn+BwSim05jF3+fF15Z6EpPPKypNLQxK
> 2ef/bcJ91Gctv0xcd6j943uOPFDCt05Ahe06/pQ0wgGdnAcKLOy/RVwDOVfprXim
> AwiVsU4aCxRI056RkEj1VuSwSYQEa91WKpTGv81lZVkRW8LRxkgc7UAydMYGjOY5
> 1prjv2Koyly5ycVvxshKVmLfuaqByY9bBnlklyKDdFW1ZD1udCflCLxmz3GuTCsm
> /FHce+Y9smqq3sF1wV7DYXu9vTnLdBqVBlDq4cEtd5XdgQm3TJ5rUGF2Mepicyhg
> Bg4ibDExDB5eKWCnGU3ioSCd8TY9cdR9ZXxpm6JLGfr9ztog0/vScsIZbj3dS4RH
> WqGklvW0F9N6NjP26WJwtQsmSIZpSJU4yPxneZOdQxGOUfdNPQap+qO+rZaitPKW
> yWaikaiSuecPSul0ithpGnCFttPHrBLyNKNl7aom04Bht4KSdaqzriIL/RylWzHW
> OgazUV9RuVdI8oEx+q3zKzOgvG3dXeL7HNdhH+j9noIyGVa8ouNHWMGfFUc1baxV
> 7eyB1buSeQY=
> =vWqe
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> --
> gentoo-performance@gentoo.org mailing list
>
> Alec Warner wrote:
>
> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >Hash: SHA1
> >
> >Jeremy Brake wrote:
> >
> >
> >>How about speeding up the wait time on updating the portage cache after
> >>a sync.. even on my AMD 64 3500 it takes a number of minutes to chug
> >>through..
> >>are there any known ways to "vrrmmm" this up a little?
> >>
> >>Jeremy
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Well the current problem is that in the 2.0 portage branch the cache
> >code sucks. This is fixed in ~arch portage ( the 2.1_pre series ). For
> >you users that don't want to upgrade to unstable, you should be able to
> >use cdb to speed up the process.
> >
> >Setting RSYNC_EXCLUDES will not speed up the second half of the --sync (
> >the --metadata portion ).
> >
> >Explanation: *snip*
> >
> >
> Thanks Alec, thats a really awesome explaination :)
>
> My server runs a 5am script which does this, so i'm not too worried
> about that machine. For those who are curious, its an Athlon 1800+ on a
> 10Mbit link, and it takes between 1 and 10 mins to process " emerge
> --sync --quiet; emerge -upvD world; glsa-check -t all "
>
> My home pc is on a 2Mbit link, so I only sync when i feel like checking
> for updates, or when I want to install something new. This will take
> minimum of 10 mins just to update the cache most times, sometimes more.
> Being a home pc, I'm happy to have some unstable stuff installed. How
> messy would it be to just run ~amd64 portage? would this work, or do I
> ideally need to make the entire base system ~amd64? (ugh).
>
> Jeremy
>
>
> --
> gentoo-performance@gentoo.org mailing list
>
> quoth the Christopher Bergström:
> > darren kirby wrote:
> > quoth the Jeremy Brake:
> >
> > How about speeding up the wait time on updating the portage cache after
> > a sync.. even on my AMD 64 3500 it takes a number of minutes to chug
> > through..
> > are there any known ways to "vrrmmm" this up a little?
> >
> >
> > +1
> >
> > Mine sped up for all of a day, but is slow as molasses once again. If I
> did
> > my syncs during the day it might even peeve me...
> >
> > What kind of hardware are you guys running on? My laptop isn't on cron
> > and I do it every couple days or so and it finishes in around 15-30
> > minutes.. I've never really paid any attention.. How long is yours
> taking?
>
> It doesn't make a difference what hardware. I have 4 boxes that run gentoo
> (Athlon 2200, Athlon 3200, Apple G4, Sparc U60) and they all run the
> actual
> sync quite fast, but the 50%-51% takes from 5 minutes on the 3200 to 30
> minutes on the G4 and U60.
>
> As I mentioned though, I don't let this bother me as I generally sync
> ~4:00am
> whilst sleeping.
>
> > What I am curious about is... what's it really doing when it says
> 51-52%..
> > That 1% seems to take forever..
> >
> > C.
> > -- gentoo-performance@gentoo.org mailing list
> -d
> --
> darren kirby :: Part of the problem since 1976 :: http://badcomputer.org
> "...the number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more
> expected..."
> - Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson, June 1972
>
>
> unsubscribe
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> Please Note: This e-mail is confidential and may be protected by law.
> This e-mail is intended solely for the named recipient(s). If you receive
> this e-mail in error, please destroy the copy in your possession
> immediately. Please do not disclose the contents to any other person, use
> information contained in it for any purpose, store or copy it. Although
> this e-mail and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus, which
> might affect a computer system into which it is received and opened, Express
> Reinforcements Ltd. can not guarantee this and does not accept
> responsibility for any damage resulting from the use of this e-mail.
> Copyright in this e-mail and any attachments remains with us. Express
> Reinforcements Ltd. Registered in England No.1808624. Head Office:
> Fordwater Trading Estate, Ford Road, Chertsey, Surrey KT16 8HG
> To Visit our website go to http://www.ExpressReinforcements.co.uk
>
> This message has been checked for all known viruses by UUNET delivered
> through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre. For further information
> visit
> http://www.uk.uu.net/products/security/virus/
>
> --
> gentoo-performance@gentoo.org mailing list
>
> >
> > The one thing that first pops to my head is some hdparm results I've had
> > and if maybe it's either my kernel setup or how I'm testing with
> hdparm...
> >
> > Anyhow..
> >
> > Raptors on SATA (Model Number: WDC WD360GD-00FNA0) (-c3 -u1 -A1
> > -W1 -d1 -a256 -M254 -m16 -X70 )
> > Kernel config
> > CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_SIL=y
> >
> > There's an alternative driver, but haven't tested it...
> >
> > hdparm -tT /dev/hde
> >
> > /dev/hde:
> > Timing cached reads: 956 MB in 2.00 seconds = 477.02 MB/sec
> > Timing buffered disk reads: 116 MB in 3.03 seconds = 38.26 MB/sec
> >
> Your times for the raptor seem awfully slow.
>
> Here the SATA settings for my kernel and my hdparm times.
>
> antec ~ # grep SATA /usr/src/linux/.config
> # CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IDE_SATA is not set
> CONFIG_SCSI_SATA=y
> CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_AHCI=y
> # CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_SVW is not set
> # CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_MV is not set
> # CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_NV is not set
> # CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_QSTOR is not set
> # CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_PROMISE is not set
> # CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_SX4 is not set
> # CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_SIL is not set
> # CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_SIL24 is not set
> # CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_SIS is not set
> # CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_ULI is not set
> # CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_VIA is not set
> # CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_VITESSE is not set
> CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_INTEL_COMBINED=y
> antec ~ # hdparm -tT /dev/md0
>
> /dev/md0:
> Timing cached reads: 2776 MB in 2.00 seconds = 1387.91 MB/sec
> Timing buffered disk reads: 398 MB in 3.00 seconds = 132.48 MB/sec
> antec ~ #
>
> Note that this is a RAID0 with two disks, so the buffered disk read time
> is double what you should expect on a normal install.
>
> Good luck.
>
> Bill Roberts
>
>
> Bill Roberts wrote:
>
> The one thing that first pops to my head is some hdparm results I've had
> and if maybe it's either my kernel setup or how I'm testing with hdparm...
>
> Anyhow..
>
> Raptors on SATA (Model Number: WDC WD360GD-00FNA0) (-c3 -u1 -A1
> -W1 -d1 -a256 -M254 -m16 -X70 )
> Kernel config
> CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_SIL=y
>
> There's an alternative driver, but haven't tested it...
>
> hdparm -tT /dev/hde
>
> /dev/hde:
> Timing cached reads: 956 MB in 2.00 seconds = 477.02 MB/sec
> Timing buffered disk reads: 116 MB in 3.03 seconds = 38.26 MB/sec
>
> Your times for the raptor seem awfully slow.
>
> Here the SATA settings for my kernel and my hdparm times.
>
> antec ~ # grep SATA /usr/src/linux/.config
> # CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IDE_SATA is not set
> CONFIG_SCSI_SATA=y
> CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_AHCI=y
> # CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_SVW is not set
> # CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_MV is not set
> # CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_NV is not set
> # CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_QSTOR is not set
> # CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_PROMISE is not set
> # CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_SX4 is not set
> # CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_SIL is not set
> # CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_SIL24 is not set
> # CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_SIS is not set
> # CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_ULI is not set
> # CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_VIA is not set
> # CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_VITESSE is not set
> CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_INTEL_COMBINED=y
> antec ~ # hdparm -tT /dev/md0
>
> /dev/md0:
> Timing cached reads: 2776 MB in 2.00 seconds = 1387.91 MB/sec
> Timing buffered disk reads: 398 MB in 3.00 seconds = 132.48 MB/sec
> antec ~ #
>
> Note that this is a RAID0 with two disks, so the buffered disk read time
> is double what you should expect on a normal install.
>
> I guess I should add that 2nd disk in there then.. Anyhow, I'm bound to
> what appears to be a not-so-friendly controller..
>
> CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_SIL is not set
>
> I'm going to change the sata_sil.c file to enable UDMA6 and I've seen some
> other minor patches as well.. If it all proves stable.. Maybe someone will
> actually get it sent upstream. What's further.. I'm on hardened.. So I think
> you might have some kernel config options I don't have.. I have to look
> again..
>
> Cheers,
>
> C.
> -- gentoo-performance@gentoo.org mailing list
> Thanks Alec Warner for the great explanation. It still seems like by not
> having
> portions of the tree by using EXCLUDEFORM and deleting the local dirs that
> you'd save some time in the --metadata part of sync as less ebuilds are
> available to be checked. Is this simply a wrong misconception?
> --
> gentoo-performance@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>
> --
> gentoo-performance@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>
> --
> gentoo-performance@gentoo.org mailing list
>
> unsubscribe
>
>
>
> Okay guys, stop mailing "unsubscribe" to the list. Instead, send a
> blank message to gentoo-performance+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org
>
> alright?
> --
> gentoo-performance@gentoo.org mailing list
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> lnxg33k wrote:
> > Thanks Alec Warner for the great explanation. It still seems like by not
> > having portions of the tree by using EXCLUDEFORM and deleting the local
> > dirs that you'd save some time in the --metadata part of sync as less
> > ebuilds are available to be checked. Is this simply a wrong
> misconception?
>
> The portion that "updates metadata cache" has nothing to do with what
> ebuilds are in the tree. It simply takes the server-side caches (
> pregenerated ) and sync them into your local cache. You could RSYNC
> exclude the whole tree and this will still happen for every package,
> since the metadata is generated on the server ( and the server has the
> whole tree ).
>
> Now if you were to rsync exclude metadata/ you would reduce the
> - --metadata portion...because it wouldn't happen ;)
>
> - -Alec Warner (antarus)
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iQIVAwUBQ9GCJ2zglR5RwbyYAQLajw/+Mvfu9+0Sfo8nHo7gbNytHRNL1jVI61RD
> /EIiZZwV067X77IP72o0Y7SICRvnooEqtLvQW+rd2c/Kb6W4EtDga94X8EbOrHIm
> 0/IFqg7OqUa/psU6IkaPk959u7UJTnqlWmzluLbqRTx/X03lpjk6n+V4BOTRhcTA
> WHa80quSpd5EkfdFAJ1oWVMn9ck7xSTn3ulzmlznCkLdWK6iR+m+r+wAWMPlcRFG
> xE/Ik5uMVemlWuAElhMoB4xr/2hKfcsu/Egw9F+zVL5+3mGMyygHhELAvTVHU/C9
> jLX3noNFC+xSOesmC0e+l88Uyz2AYPuhg8S+3qciC+4Ax2QkDhhRxwM7lLF6yPBx
> UpDNnTecT1iVuFUhHP08T2GPq8Nyvtzj4oqgjzKq1+l2RdehDM8j0KZrq5ZwDszb
> CdKakVUrVXmMOEp16E48k5/66sulgJ5fNdVubJYNdPwsY2dNJ5MC7wbxSwIT46TD
> 88tYAgco4cH9o4whwL2KZIjCQodKgvNwCnvW3qeXOdD/WqRSvuVbFIZh/+YZMHXi
> KVnWrePS2kwukMiL28oB9fwsJomQpwxCJlhZxuLto7kM1vBhlKLOeFfoZ8gm6mrF
> gBkDwiyV7aNHL4tFgAGtvDPReQhRS4DcN61EVEOYxMxQIKh1lDSFR1UW+j538S9c
> J/7XGJI9CxQ=
> =Qike
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> --
> gentoo-performance@gentoo.org mailing list
>
> Alec Warner wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > lnxg33k wrote:
> >> Thanks Alec Warner for the great explanation. It still seems like by
> not
> >> having portions of the tree by using EXCLUDEFORM and deleting the local
> >> dirs that you'd save some time in the --metadata part of sync as less
> >> ebuilds are available to be checked. Is this simply a wrong
> misconception?
> >
> > The portion that "updates metadata cache" has nothing to do with what
> > ebuilds are in the tree. It simply takes the server-side caches (
> > pregenerated ) and sync them into your local cache. You could RSYNC
> > exclude the whole tree and this will still happen for every package,
> > since the metadata is generated on the server ( and the server has the
> > whole tree ).
> >
> > Now if you were to rsync exclude metadata/ you would reduce the
> > - --metadata portion...because it wouldn't happen ;)
> >
> <snip>
>
> Ah, ok. Hearing it again makes it sound more reasonable. I'll have to
> watch my
> rsync output a bit more closely. Thanks again for the explanation.
> --
> gentoo-performance@gentoo.org mailing list
>
> How to get Maximum performance in Graphics on Nvidia Drivers????
>
>
> --
> gentoo-performance@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>
>