On Apr 20, 2016, at 10:26 PM, Vagrant Cascadian <vagr...@debian.org> wrote:
> This appears to be a thread forked from a reproducible-builds > discussion. :) > > On 2016-04-20, Rick Thomas wrote: >> On Sun, Apr 17, 2016, at 06:36 PM, Steven Chamberlain wrote: >>> I was wondering what is the performance of various armhf boards, for >>> package building. >> ... >>> cbxi4a-armhf-rb.debian.net 1996 2365 # 4x,4G; >>> Cubox-i4x4 >>> cbxi4pro0-armhf-rb.debian.net 1973 2743 # 4x,2G; >>> CuBox-i4Pro >> ... >>> I don't know whether to believe these figures yet! >>> >>> * cbxi4a/b seem no faster than cbxi4pro0 despite twice the RAM? > >> One personal experience that may be relevant: >> >> I ordered a Cubox-i4x4 from NewEgg a few months ago. When it arrived it >> was clearly marked as a 4x4, and in the original shrink-wrap, But it >> only had 2GB of RAM. I notified NewEgg and they tested one of the other >> one's of that batch they had in stock. Surprise! It also had only 2GB >> RAM... They gave me a rebate of the difference in price between the >> i4-Pro and the 4x4 and we considered the matter closed. > > Well, you need to either use the vendor u-boot with support for more > ram, or patch mainline u-boot to use more. Haven't taken the time to > write a patch that works with all the various ram configurations, so > haven't pushed anything mainline. > > The cubox-i4x4 I am running with a one or two line patched mainline > u-boot but effectively are limited to 3.8GB, but that's still > significantly more than 2GB. > > > live well, > vagrant