Solved How long is building qt6-webengine supposed to take?

The new 6.x tree of deskutils/calibre now depends on qt6 and hence wants to pull in pulseaudio, alsa and 400+MB of other stuff, so I added it to my poudriere list yesterday to remove the pulse and alsa dependencies.

Out of 58 ports to be (re)build, 55 have been built within a normal time frame, but now the bulk job has been blocked by www/qt6-webengine for 18 hours!!

1674592048847.png


My buildhost is a dual Xeon E5-2630L with 128GB RAM; poudriere jails are spun up on a pool of SSD-mirrors - so it might not be the fastest system by current standards, but also far from being a lame duck. Also system load is rather low - every now and then a single c++ process with usually ~20-30% load and some bursts to 60-100% shows up at the top of the process list in top, otherwise the system is mostly idling (i.e. doing its 'normal work' with a zabbix jail being the major workload of that server).

Is this a normal/expected build time for qt6-webengine? qt5-webengine usually took ~1:30 h on that host...

I'm building on/for 12.4-RELEASE, amd64 and the latest ports tree.

My make.conf is pretty simple:
Code:
OPTIONS_UNSET+= DBUS PULSE PULSEAUDIO ATK_BRIDGE JACK ALSA AKONADI AVAHI TEST MYSQLI MYSQL
OPTIONS_SET+=OPTIMIZED_CFLAGS CPUFLAGS PGSQL SNDIO
DEFAULT_VERSIONS+=ssl=openssl
DEFAULT_VERSIONS+=php=81
OSS=on
PULSEAUDIO=off
DBUS=off
PGSQL=on
MYSQL=off
MYSQLI=off

# required to build anydesk
LICENSES_ACCEPTED+=commercial

poudriere.conf also holds no real surprises (I think/hope)
Code:
ZPOOL=jails
FREEBSD_HOST=https://download.freebsd.org
RESOLV_CONF=/etc/resolv.conf
BASEFS=/usr/local/poudriere
USE_PORTLINT=yes
USE_TMPFS=yes
DISTFILES_CACHE=/usr/local/poudriere/ports/distfiles
CHECK_CHANGED_OPTIONS=verbose
PKG_REPO_SIGNING_KEY=/usr/local/etc/poudriere.d/keys/pkg.<mykey>.key
CCACHE_DIR=/var/cache/ccache
PARALLEL_JOBS=20
SAVE_WRKDIR=yes
NO_FORCE_PACKAGE=yes
ALLOW_MAKE_JOBS_PACKAGES="pkg ccache py* chromium rust* llvm* gcc* qt5-* firefox* node* cmake"
URL_BASE=https://pkg.<myrepourl>
KEEP_OLD_PACKAGES=yes
BUILDER_HOSTNAME=pkg.<mybuildhost>
PRIORITY_BOOST="pypy openoffice* node rust* py* cmake llvm* clang* gcc*"
HTML_TRACK_REMAINING=yes


EDIT: solved - it was building on a single job. Build finished in under 1 1/2h after adding 'qt6-*' to the ALLOW_MAKE_JOBS_PACKAGES list.
 
Add qt6-webengine to your ALLOW_MAKE_JOBS_PACKAGES, maybe add it to PRIORITY_BOOST too. CPU load is at 6% with only that one job running. I'm betting it's only using one core to build it.
 
Add qt6-webengine to your ALLOW_MAKE_JOBS_PACKAGES, maybe add it to PRIORITY_BOOST too. CPU load is at 6% with only that one job running. I'm betting it's only using one core to build it.
Yes, there's only a single c++ process running that isn't even maxing out a single core...

And now that you mention it - I do have 'qt5-*' in my ALLOW_MAKE_JOBS_PACKAGES list, but haven't added 'qt6-*' yet. Just did that and restarted that bulk job. I'll report back in a while, but at least for the last few minutes system load was constantly above *90% with several c++, python and node processes running in parallel.
 
18 friggin' HOURS???? Well, that Xeon is like, 10 years old by now.... A Ryzen 5 1400 (released in 2017) compiled qt5-webengine in about 3 hours (on a rig with 32 GB of RAM), and a Ryzen 7 5800x compiled qt5-webengine in less than an hour (Different rig, still 32 GB of RAM). A Ryzen 5 2500U (laptop with 8 GB of RAM) took 6 hours on qt5-webengine). A ryzen 9 6900HS took just under an hour in a VM, using just 4 cores to compile qt5-webengine... 😲
 
well, "problem" solved:
1674601337320.png


I might just need some more sleep - thanks SirDice for pointing out the obvious: of course qt6-* needs to be on the 'ALLOW_MAKE_JOBS_PACKAGES' list to be allowed to run more build jobs.

astyle As I said: I know it's not the latest, cutting edge machine, yet still powerful enough for the few ports I am building locally and what I use it for. That server was mainly laid out for low TDP and relatively low normal loads. And with slightly under 200W under normal load (including 7 SAS HDDs) I'm still quite happy with it, especially at the price point I built that system ~3 years ago (i.e. still less than what you'd pay at today's inflated prices for used server hardware...)

eternal_noob: I still consider raspberries and similar gadgets as toys, not as something you would use for real workloads, let alone building packages on. Yet still - the problem was not system related, but me not allowing poudriere to make full use of the system.
 
Back
Top