On 8 December 2017 at 15:13, Scott Bennett <benn...@sdf.org> wrote:

> Michael Fothergill via ccache <ccache@lists.samba.org> wrote:
>
> > On 8 December 2017 at 01:35, Scott Bennett via ccache <
> > ccache@lists.samba.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Michael Fothergill via ccache <ccache@lists.samba.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I have an amd64 kaveri box with 8GB RAM and run Gentoo stable on it.
> > > >
> > > > I have just installed ccache with 2GB memory allocated to it.
> > >
> > >      By that, I assume you have allocated some kind of memory-based
> device
> > > for the cache.  Is that a correct understanding?
> > >
> >
> > ?Thanks for your reply and comments.  I am assuming that by having the
> > standard command ?
> >
> > ?CCACHE_SIZE="4G" (I have increased the allocation)
>
>      As ccache is installed on my system, I cannot find an environment
> variable of that name documented.  Are you sure it is being used?  What I
> do find documented are CCACHE_MAX_SIZE and the corresponding ccache.conf
> parameter max_size.  If you're going to build large items like libreoffice
> or a LINUX world, you probably ought to have a much larger cache.  I also
> found it a good idea to change limit_multiple from its default value of 0.8
> to 0.95 to avoid half-hour-long cleanups in the middle of build runs.
>      It is worth noting that, by my understanding of ccache the last time
> I dug into it a bit, ccache actually maintains 16 distinct caches, but the
> max_size and limit_multiple values apply to the total size and usage
> fraction of the aggregate of all 16 caches.  When a cleanup occurs, ccache
> chooses one of the 16 caches and begins deleting the least recently used
> entries in it until the total space allocated has been reduced to the
> limit_multiple fraction of the max_size.  If it runs out of things to
> delete in that cache while the total allocated remains above that fraction,
> ccache chooses another cache from which to begin deleting entries, and so
> on.
> This procedure differs from the one described in the ccache man page and is
> one reason I like to give more space to the cache(s) in order to prevent
> recent entries from disappearing from a cache while other, far less
> recently
> used entries remain in the other 15 caches.  By having a max_size large
> enough to hold the last several iterations of frequently built items,
> cleanups are more likely to satisfy the limit_multiple by deleting the
> oldest
> few iterations of updates while sparing the more recently used entries
> in a cache.  These days the disk space is cheap enough to give it 10 GB to
> 30 GB without creating any problems for me, so I just do that.  Another
> trick
> to keep the caches useful is to allocate separate ones for different
> purposes.
> For example, I set up one for building the OS userland and kernel, another
> for building libreoffice, and a third for building everything else.  Doing
> this keeps the OS and libreoffice from evicting everything else or each
> other
> prematurely. :-)
>
> > then memory from the hard drive is being used by default here - I was not
> > trying to use e.g. RAM memory.
> >
>      Oh.  Okay.
>      If your system is used heavily for compiling software, you may see
> some
> performance gains from putting the cache area onto an SSD.  Using a system
> memory-based cache is, of course, lightning fast, but the entire cache
> evaporates when the device is deallocated (e.g., during a system shutdown
> or
> failure).  I tried using software five- and six-way RAID-0 devices for the
> file system containing my caches for a while, but decided their performance
> was poor.  At present I'm using a software CONCAT made of two two-way
> software
> RAID-1's, all on the same kind of hard drives as the earlier setups, and
> this
> setup seems to do very nicely for now.  I just have to remember not to run
> updates at the same time as scrubs on the six-way raidz2 that occupies the
> bulk of the same drives. :-)  I only scrub that pool about every three to
> four
> weeks, though, so it usually isn't a problem.
> > >
> > > > I have tried some repeat compilations to see if there would be any
> speed
> > > > increase.
> > > >
> > > > So far I have not seen much change but I am not skilled enough to
> improve
> > > > things yet.
> > >
> > >      Your statistics show that slightly more than 45% of your total
> > > compiler invocations (hits/(hits+misses)) were avoided.  Did that not
> > > make a dent in your timings?
> > > >
> > > > I tried compiling gcc, glibc and imagemagick but did not see much
> > > > improvement.
> > >
> > >      If you run the full build process for gcc, I would not expect
> > > to see much improvement because most of it involves the use of either
> > > a) a temporarily built compiler in a temporary location or b) the
> > > newly built compiler being used for testing, but not yet installed
> > > into the production location on your system.
> > >
> >
> > ?Would cachecc1 perform any better with gcc??
> >
>      I don't know what cachecc1 is, so I have no idea.  Sorry.
>

​cachecc1 is a gcc cache.

See here​


​http://cachecc1.sourceforge.net/​


​There are some other packages listed under related projects:

https://ccache.samba.org/

e.g. gocache ccontrol and others

Has anyone tried cachecc1 on the site here?

There is no Gentoo package for it so I would need to compile it and install
it by hand.

Cheers

Regards

MF

​


>
> > >      ImageMagick and GraphicsMagick both should provide useful timings
> > > and ccache statistics.  glibc probably would, too, though it's not
> > > nearly as big.  I don't know what sort of build procedures Gentoo uses,
> > > but from the FreeBSD ports tree, here are some other good examples of
> > > test cases:  math/octave, www/webkit-gtk2, www/webkit-gtk3,
> > > www/webkit2-gtk3, devel/llvm40.  Be prepared to wait a long time for
> > > the first compilation of each of the webkits.  They are big and slow
> > > to compile and, in the past, have shown instabilities in their build
> > > procedures when parallel make runs were used.
> > >
> >
> > ?I have now compiled qtwebengine, libreoffice and and dramatically
> reduced
> > the compile time with ccache
> > now I am using the 3.3.4 version of the program ( see here
> > https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1073298.html
> > ? ). I think the earlier version of ccache was not working properly.
>
>      Although some parts of libreoffice remain unaffected by ccache, the
> build as a whole will show radically lower run times.  I hope you enjoyed
> seeing how much shorter it was after the first run with ccache. :-)
> >
> > People on the thread have suggested that maybe cachecc1 might not work so
> > well with gcc in practice and I should stick
> > with ccache as is.
> >
> > But you may take a different view.  ?
> >
>      I must plead ignorance, so no view at all.
> >
> >
> > > YMMV on another OS.
> > >      One big savings for me was in running "make buildworld" and "make
> > > buildkernel".  buildworld, on my last machine, was taking about six
> > > hours elapsed time for a first run.  When running it later after
> > > updating the source tree, the elapsed time was reduced by 2/3 to 3/4,
> > > depending upon the number and sizes of source modules affected by the
> > > updates.
> > >
> >
> > ?These sound like the emerge --ask --update --deep @world command used in
> > Gentoo (and similar versions).?
>
>      buildworld is the make target that oversees the compilation of all of
> the FreeBSD userland.  buildkernel is the corresponding target for the
> FreeBSD kernel and all of its loadable modules.
> >
> > ?It's not time to update the system again yet but I think that it could
> > well speed things up as long as the cache size is big enough for a lot of
> > packages (e.g. 200 plus)
>
>      Again, I'd recommend setting up a separate cache area for it.  I
> currently allow 10 GB for the libreoffice cache, 16 GB for the OS build
> cache, and 30 GB for everything else.  All three of these and
> the build temporary area for ports are physically in the same file system.
> The libreoffice cache and OS build cache space allowances are probably
> bigger than is really helpful, but I have the space, and space not being
> used is space being wasted.  FWIW, the cache for building ports averages a
> 50% - 55% hit rate, which adds up to quite a bit of CPU and elapsed time
> saved in the course of a month.
>
>
>                                   Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG
> **********************************************************************
> * Internet:   bennett at sdf.org   *xor*   bennett at freeshell.org  *
> *--------------------------------------------------------------------*
> * "A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good  *
> * objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments *
> * -- a standing army."                                               *
> *    -- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790         *
> **********************************************************************
>
_______________________________________________
ccache mailing list
ccache@lists.samba.org
https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/ccache

Reply via email to