Building OpenOffice Now Realistic!

Kidov · n00b Joined: 20 Jul 2006 Posts: 44 Location: Finland

I had to test how fast would my overclocked Q6600@3600MHz do the compiling of OO2.4. :-)

Other specs:
2Gb of RAM
System hdd: old 160Gb Samsung sata...

tullygray · Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2008 11:14 am Post subject: Open Office compile times

Hi,

I've got Open Office compiling now as I need to submit a spreadsheet for my course, it *must* be in .ods format and it *must* be generated by Open Office. Just how long does it take to compile this thing on a 1.5 GHz processor?

NeddySeagoon · Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2008 11:36 am Post subject:

tullygray,

Its not just CPU, its its RAM dependent too. The good news is that OOo 3 uses your MAKEOPT setting. Thats -j2 if you didin't set it, to reduce the overall time.

On my Athlon XP+ 3200 with 1GB RAM, its about 6 hours.
_________________
Regards,

NeddySeagoon

Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail.

tullygray · Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2008 2:51 pm Post subject:

Yeah, it just finished. Took my AMD box about 17 hours. Then I did portage rsync and I see that now version 3 is unmasked. I just put version 2.4 on - groan!

nixnut · Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:49 pm Post subject:

merged above three posts here

There's also openofffice-bin which is prefab. That will emerge a lot faster.
_________________
Please add [solved] to the initial post's subject line if you feel your problem is resolved. Help answer the unanswered

talk is cheap. supply exceeds demand

srunni · Guru Joined: 26 Dec 2007 Posts: 365

zAfi · Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:10 pm Post subject:

Kollin · Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 8:25 am Post subject:

Just to inform you guys that if someone wishes to compile openoffice 3.0 in ram you need a 6144M ramdisk (system requirements are for 5120 but it`s not enough).

my fstab entry:

genstorm · Veteran Joined: 05 Apr 2007 Posts: 1957 Location: Austria

hmm, then maybe my 5,9G ramdisk was the culprit all the time. That's worth a check, thanks!

_________________
backend.cpp:92:2: warning: #warning TODO - this error message is about as useful as a cooling unit in the arctic

djinnZ · Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 2:07 pm Post subject:

because I use the fileserver to compile not care too much for the time spended but i find useful having the ability to stop and resume the build.
Is "just an idea" but seems to work.
Note than the hardened use flag is only for a try of mine, it will never work, so remove from the IUSE or mask for OOo.

IMHO will be better have a separate src_configure step in the ebuilds but this need a new eapi definition and is better evaluate how it work, how much is useful and for how many packages with this workaround before try to request an enhancement.

If you have time to spend or a better hardware as mine please help me to test.
If it work can be applied to the others big packages as gtk/qt/mozilla/wxgtk and others.
Thanks in advice for any help or contribution.
_________________
verba et risus abundat in orae stultorum sed etiam semper severi insani sunt :wink:

mala tempora currunt... mater stultorum semper pregna est :twisted:

Murpy'sLaw: If anything can go wrong, it will - O'Toole's Corollary: Murphy was an optimist

notmynormalself · n00b Joined: 19 Jun 2008 Posts: 15 Location: Oregon

djinnZ · Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 1:47 pm Post subject:

For the older versions of portage in the gechi overlay was a bashrc script useful for this (or you can try to build another one portage-bashrc script).

Another trick to speed up the build is to use multiple swap files (on the server of mine there are 8, one for disk and all in the first GB of every disk, but i have a single core cpu so the benefits are marginal) and tmpfs.

Due to our misfortune OOo (and more packages) will not use a dedicated dir for the compiled binaries and they are mixed with the sources, only one GB is really required to build, another way can be to mount via aufs/unionfs a tmpfs over the portage tmpdir with the expandend sources after the ./configure invocation.
_________________
verba et risus abundat in orae stultorum sed etiam semper severi insani sunt :wink:

mala tempora currunt... mater stultorum semper pregna est :twisted:

Murpy'sLaw: If anything can go wrong, it will - O'Toole's Corollary: Murphy was an optimist

keet · Guru Joined: 09 Sep 2008 Posts: 322

I just finished building OpenOffice 3 on my old laptop (PIII-600, 128MB RAM). It took between 25 and 34 hours -- I don't know the exact length of time. Do you know what is sad about this, though? Running oocalc takes 50% of my laptop's RAM, over 50MB. Running Excel 2002 in Windows (in VirtualBox) on my main computer uses just under 7MB. oocalc on my main PC uses well over 50MB of RAM. I don't understand this.. is there some sort of error in the memory calculation? Maybe MS Task Manager provides a very conservative estimate, or perhaps ksysguard and top are incorrect? If not, then oocalc 3.0.0 uses several times the memory of the older but fully-functional Excel 2002.

By the way, kspread uses about 20-30MB of RAM on either computer. Hm.. maybe I should reboot into Windows and test my Office 2008 applications (which I got for about $5 at work, and no, I'm not a professional software pirate

).
_________________
My Gentoo computers:
Home-built i7 2600K / 8GB RAM || Dell T6400/4GB RAM
Panasonic Toughbook CF-51 T2300/4GB RAM || Fujitsu Lifebook P4/1.6Ghz, 512MB RAM

megaflow · n00b Joined: 11 Mar 2005 Posts: 41 Location: Maasmechelen

posey · n00b Joined: 15 Dec 2007 Posts: 16

I feel that the realisticness of building openoffice has just taken a step backward.

Kollin · Posted: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:27 am Post subject:

It`s improving here:

outermeasure · Posted: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:51 am Post subject:

Kollin · Posted: Tue Dec 30, 2008 3:20 pm Post subject: