William Harrington wrote:
Don't get me wrong though, I have nothing against you doing this, but
doesn't it make it little less true for someone? I mean, obviously the
former value was from a system under (average) load and the second one
is from a sort of base system with no additional software running. Why
not add these two, then divide them by two to get a value that's mostly
true for base system and systems under (average) load (ie, a wm, desktop
or simply just X).
--
Note: My last name is not Krejzi.
Not to mention, having an SBU when using multiple CPU's or cores when the
rest of the book has SBU's based with one CPU or one core, and when the
LFS book SBU is measured with one core/cpu. May as well put in every book
an SBU based on multiple jobs when the system has so many CPU's or cores.
I suggest leaving the SBU as if someone is using one CPU or one core.
Here's one major issue with the SBU and then stating the SBU when using 4
CPU's or cores,
When the first SBU is measured it is using one CPU or one core. When using
multiple jobs, the SBU is not going to be accurate, especially when
someone moves the build to a different machine.
I would suggest to leave the SBU with one CPU or core. Adding a note with
machine specifics could be used for SBU's when using multiple CPU's or
cores.
I agree with you for the most part, but for the very long running
builds, just waiting 2 hours or more (aka Libreoffice, webkit, etc) just
to get a SBU value is not a good use of developer time.
I prefer -j1 for timing, but I also think that increasing that value
(with documentation) for very large packages is reasonable.
-- Bruce
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
