FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Gentoo > Gentoo User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 02-04-2009, 12:03 PM
Momesso Andrea
 
Default Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?

On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 08:58:23AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Wednesday 04 February 2009 01:48:34 Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> > So all in all, I agree. *Using Gentoo is nowadays not so much a matter
> > of performance optimization but of better control of how to build the
> > packages and the rolling release nature (I'm tired of major updates
> > every 6 months in the majority of binary distros.) *I also like the USE
> > flags which let me chose how to build something and get rid of
> > dependencies I don't need. *Administrative features like dispatch-conf
> > are also very useful.
>
> This is the main benefit of Gentoo for me. I have to use SuSE or RHEL at work
> for the database machines - Sybase will not support any other other distro -
> and the 1G+ base install from those distros drive me nuts. Contrast that with
> the DNS caches which run FreeBSD, the difference is about a factor of 5 if
> not more.
>
> I also get sick and tired of installing postfix on a database machine purely
> to send nagios alerts, and watching the distro "helpfully" want to pull in
> PostgreSQL, MySQL, LDAP, SASL, Courier and some fancy MTA-switcher thingy.
> All because the maintainer enables those features and now I gotta have them.
>
> No thanks. Rather give me USE so I say what goes on the box.
>
> --
> alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
>

Often on gentoo related IRC chanels comes someone who asks why his
firefox-bin (or openoffice-bin or *-bin) runs faster than his
built-from-source firefox.

Usually chan's gurus answer that upstream packagers use all the possible
compiler optimizations (CFLAGS LDFLAGS etc.) for the given package,
while the average gentoo users keeps a set of "system wide very safe
optimizations" that are good for most packages, but not the best for
every particolar package.

Is that statement correct?

=======
TopperH
=======
 
Old 02-04-2009, 12:15 PM
Sebastián Magrí
 
Default Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?

El mié, 04-02-2009 a las 14:03 +0100, Momesso Andrea escribió:
> On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 08:58:23AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > On Wednesday 04 February 2009 01:48:34 Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> > > So all in all, I agree. Using Gentoo is nowadays not so much a matter
> > > of performance optimization but of better control of how to build the
> > > packages and the rolling release nature (I'm tired of major updates
> > > every 6 months in the majority of binary distros.) I also like the USE
> > > flags which let me chose how to build something and get rid of
> > > dependencies I don't need. Administrative features like dispatch-conf
> > > are also very useful.
> >
> > This is the main benefit of Gentoo for me. I have to use SuSE or RHEL at work
> > for the database machines - Sybase will not support any other other distro -
> > and the 1G+ base install from those distros drive me nuts. Contrast that with
> > the DNS caches which run FreeBSD, the difference is about a factor of 5 if
> > not more.
> >
> > I also get sick and tired of installing postfix on a database machine purely
> > to send nagios alerts, and watching the distro "helpfully" want to pull in
> > PostgreSQL, MySQL, LDAP, SASL, Courier and some fancy MTA-switcher thingy.
> > All because the maintainer enables those features and now I gotta have them.
> >
> > No thanks. Rather give me USE so I say what goes on the box.
> >
> > --
> > alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
> >
>
> Often on gentoo related IRC chanels comes someone who asks why his
> firefox-bin (or openoffice-bin or *-bin) runs faster than his
> built-from-source firefox.
>
> Usually chan's gurus answer that upstream packagers use all the possible
> compiler optimizations (CFLAGS LDFLAGS etc.) for the given package,
> while the average gentoo users keeps a set of "system wide very safe
> optimizations" that are good for most packages, but not the best for
> every particolar package.
>
> Is that statement correct?
>
> =======
> TopperH
> =======

I've always felt the compiled openoffice faster than the binary one, but
if it is not the case portage also gives you the chance of establishing
per-package optimisations on '/etc/portage/env/' or in the paludis
bashrc, so if one user wants an particular app to go faster, he can
research about the best way to build this one. This way, the user can
keep the very safe optimisations for the rest of the system and some
-unsafe optimisations- for the packages he want.

It is more about choices...
 
Old 02-04-2009, 12:31 PM
Momesso Andrea
 
Default Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?

On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 08:45:50AM -0430, Sebastián Magrí wrote:
[snip]
> >
> > Often on gentoo related IRC chanels comes someone who asks why his
> > firefox-bin (or openoffice-bin or *-bin) runs faster than his
> > built-from-source firefox.
> >
> > Usually chan's gurus answer that upstream packagers use all the possible
> > compiler optimizations (CFLAGS LDFLAGS etc.) for the given package,
> > while the average gentoo users keeps a set of "system wide very safe
> > optimizations" that are good for most packages, but not the best for
> > every particolar package.
> >
> > Is that statement correct?
> >
> > =======
> > TopperH
> > =======
>
> I've always felt the compiled openoffice faster than the binary one, but
> if it is not the case portage also gives you the chance of establishing
> per-package optimisations on '/etc/portage/env/' or in the paludis
> bashrc, so if one user wants an particular app to go faster, he can
> research about the best way to build this one. This way, the user can
> keep the very safe optimisations for the rest of the system and some
> -unsafe optimisations- for the packages he want.
>
> It is more about choices...

Sure, I've used per-package optimizations myself in some particular
cases, but that's not the point.

A package manteiner *should* know better than an average user which
optimizations will tune better their own package.

My question can be put like this: Do binary distro's per package
optimiziations override the benefit of having arch specific
optimiziations that gentoo allows?


=======
TopperH
=======
 
Old 02-04-2009, 12:56 PM
Sebastián Magrí
 
Default Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?

El mié, 04-02-2009 a las 14:31 +0100, Momesso Andrea escribió:
> On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 08:45:50AM -0430, Sebastián Magrí wrote:
> [snip]
> > >
> > > Often on gentoo related IRC chanels comes someone who asks why his
> > > firefox-bin (or openoffice-bin or *-bin) runs faster than his
> > > built-from-source firefox.
> > >
> > > Usually chan's gurus answer that upstream packagers use all the possible
> > > compiler optimizations (CFLAGS LDFLAGS etc.) for the given package,
> > > while the average gentoo users keeps a set of "system wide very safe
> > > optimizations" that are good for most packages, but not the best for
> > > every particolar package.
> > >
> > > Is that statement correct?
> > >
> > > =======
> > > TopperH
> > > =======
> >
> > I've always felt the compiled openoffice faster than the binary one, but
> > if it is not the case portage also gives you the chance of establishing
> > per-package optimisations on '/etc/portage/env/' or in the paludis
> > bashrc, so if one user wants an particular app to go faster, he can
> > research about the best way to build this one. This way, the user can
> > keep the very safe optimisations for the rest of the system and some
> > -unsafe optimisations- for the packages he want.
> >
> > It is more about choices...
>
> Sure, I've used per-package optimizations myself in some particular
> cases, but that's not the point.
>
> A package manteiner *should* know better than an average user which
> optimizations will tune better their own package.
>
> My question can be put like this: Do binary distro's per package
> optimiziations override the benefit of having arch specific
> optimiziations that gentoo allows?
>
>
> =======
> TopperH
> =======

It does, but I am almost sure that most of the binary distro's package
maintainers can't ship a package with hard optimisations because it will
possibly work fine on his box but not in the user's box. There is where
we heard histories about binary distros users compiling their apps to
improve it's performance, possibly breaking their system at the same
time.

Gentoo maintainers *should* also know better than the users which
optimisations can be given to the user for a package to build and work
fine... Other case is when it represents a risk of having unstable apps,
in that case dropping optimisations is necessary in order to have more
stable apps.
 
Old 02-04-2009, 03:55 PM
Momesso Andrea
 
Default Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?

On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 03:59:44PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Wednesday 04 February 2009 15:31:26 Momesso Andrea wrote:
> > My question can be put like this: Do binary distro's per package
> > optimiziations override the benefit of having arch specific
> > optimiziations that gentoo allows?
>
> That can only be answered with valid benchmarks on paper in front of you.
>
> Have you performed valid benchmark tests?
>

Nope, if I had there would have been no reason to ask...

=======
TopperH
=======
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 11:11 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org