On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 01:12:50AM +0200, Uwe Düffert wrote: > On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Ken Moffat wrote: > > > Any thoughts, or alternative suggestions ? > Yes, a few: > > As others already suspected, I would expect latency (like seek times) of > the hard drive to have a significant influence on build times and thus > times might be influenced by caching as well as by significantly changed > fill level of a partition.
But, I'm only ever comparing times on the same system, and this package (abiword) was almost at the end of my build, so the amount of '/' used is almost the same (for me, /home is always a separate filesystem - ok, I've probably extended the usage of /var/log - and yes, updating the browser cache involves head movement, but such a large variation ? > > If thats the case then using an SSD should improve the relyability of > build times. I'll run a series of builds of the same package this night > (binutils as well for comparison) on a quite fast SSD and report back. > With respect, if we *have to* use SSDs then most of us won't be able to edit the book and it will wither even more than it has so far. > If HD turns out not to be the problem: what about those modern processors > that overclock some cores automatically? That might easily be influenced > by running *something* in the background that keeps yet another core > active and prevents the package building core(s) from overclocking... > > Uwe Modern processors ? Multiple cores ? I'm using single-processors from somewhere between 4 and 5 years ago ;) ĸen -- for applications, 31 bits are enough ;) -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
