View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
metalhedd l33t
Joined: 30 May 2002 Posts: 692 Location: Ontario Canada
|
Posted: Fri Oct 18, 2002 5:18 pm Post subject: holy compile time batman!! |
|
|
last night I started emerging KDE and mozilla at the same time on my 256 MB TBird 800 system. Mozilla finished around 2am... now its 1pm the next day and KDE Is STILL Compiling, i realize that it slows down when compiling 2 things at once, but even if i had started kde after mozilla finished it should have been done long ago. i already had X emerged i think KDE only takes about 6 hours normally. what could be going on? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
pjp Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002 Posts: 20067
|
Posted: Fri Oct 18, 2002 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Post Installation Guide issue, moved from Installing Gentoo. _________________ Quis separabit? Quo animo? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
metalhedd l33t
Joined: 30 May 2002 Posts: 692 Location: Ontario Canada
|
Posted: Fri Oct 18, 2002 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry Kanuslupus. this is getting completely ridiculous now. its 3pm. its been compiling on its own for over 12 hours. thats more than twice as long as it should have taken. its downloading "kdeedu" Right now. i hope its almost done, I don'tk nkow the order of the packages though. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Craigo Apprentice
Joined: 09 Aug 2002 Posts: 249 Location: /dev/life
|
Posted: Fri Oct 18, 2002 7:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
While you are still compiling, you should do 'emerge -p package' to check how many packages are left in another terminal.
I do this when I forgotten to check where I don't want to stop the compiling!
Small tip but useful. Hope this help :/
-/Craigo/- |
|
Back to top |
|
|
pjp Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002 Posts: 20067
|
Posted: Fri Oct 18, 2002 8:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, at least it is still 'moving'... I was thinking it was hung somewhere. What gave you the impression that it would only take 6hrs? I've read reports of 24hrs. _________________ Quis separabit? Quo animo? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
phong Bodhisattva
Joined: 16 Jul 2002 Posts: 778 Location: Michigan - 15 & Ryan
|
Posted: Fri Oct 18, 2002 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The "whole ball of wax" kde has gotten pretty huge. I always install just "kdebase" then add the portions that I want as I go (usually kdeartwork, kdenetwork, kdeutils right away). I don't use anything in kdeedu for example. _________________ "An empty head is not really empty; it is stuffed with rubbish. Hence the difficulty of forcing anything into an empty head."
-- Eric Hoffer |
|
Back to top |
|
|
metalhedd l33t
Joined: 30 May 2002 Posts: 692 Location: Ontario Canada
|
Posted: Fri Oct 18, 2002 11:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kanuslupus I've installed kde3.1 on this system before, including X it took like 8 hours. i just checked with my roommate (I'm at work right now) and he said it just finished like an hour ago, thats like 18 hours or something.... 3 times what it took last time... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
pjp Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002 Posts: 20067
|
Posted: Sat Oct 19, 2002 12:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
What version of gcc are the quicker times with vs. the 18hrs? gcc3 is supposedly slower at compiling, but makes faster binaries. _________________ Quis separabit? Quo animo? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
metalhedd l33t
Joined: 30 May 2002 Posts: 692 Location: Ontario Canada
|
Posted: Sat Oct 19, 2002 1:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
on this particular system the last time I installed was with GCC 2.95. the 18 hour one was using 3.2... however my friend has the identical system (But Athlon XP 1900+ instead of tbird 800) he compiled with gcc 3.2 in what I would consider the 'expected' time. (roughly 6 hours)
an increase in compile time wouldn't surprise me going from 2.95 to 3.2, but I would find it hard to believe that it could triple using 3.2 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
guero61 l33t
Joined: 14 Oct 2002 Posts: 811 Location: Behind you
|
Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2002 3:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
I know it's late, but I can still put in my $0.02, right? I posted a while ago -- I'm running an XP-1800 with 512MB and a 60G WD 7200 drive; plenty of horsepower. Under v1.4, it took me from 7:15am to at least 4:30pm. It just took a really really long time to compile. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
yokem55 Guru
Joined: 18 Apr 2002 Posts: 360 Location: Oregon
|
Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2002 3:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Is it possible DMA isn't activated on your hard drive? That could slow things down considerably. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
metalhedd l33t
Joined: 30 May 2002 Posts: 692 Location: Ontario Canada
|
Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2002 12:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
the hard drive in this system is Ultra wide scsi, si I don't think its a DMA Issue (scsi doesn't use DMA Right?)
maybe its just the newest kde Beta that takes a long time to compile..? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aardvark Guru
Joined: 30 Jun 2002 Posts: 576
|
Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2002 1:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
check with top if no other process is hogging the cpu. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
donoreo n00b
Joined: 15 Oct 2002 Posts: 44 Location: Toronto
|
Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2002 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My KDE install took just over 15 hours on a Celeron 900 with 512MB RAM. I had DMA activated on the drive and the other other process was a login. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ashkar n00b
Joined: 26 Sep 2002 Posts: 48
|
Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm installing KDE right now to see what's so great about it. I started last night about 2300 and it's now 1300 on the last package. I'm estimating about 15 hours total by the time it finishes.
1900+ XP, 256 MiB RAM, WD 100GB 7200 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
arkane l33t
Joined: 30 Apr 2002 Posts: 918 Location: Phoenix, AZ
|
Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2002 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
yokem55 wrote: | Is it possible DMA isn't activated on your hard drive? That could slow things down considerably. |
The last thing I'd expect to slow down a compile would be the harddrive considering compilation is a CPU intensive process. Any drive from 1995+ can stand up to the disk reading of a KDE compile. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|