Matt Dillon wrote:
>
> :> In fact, it's exactly the opposite. 'make world' is CPU-bound, so the
> :> speed of the I/O system is irrelevant. If it were I/O bound, soft
> :> updates *would* make a difference, because a number of unnecessary
> :> writes would be eliminated.
> :
> :Read what he writes. Soft updates *did* make a difference - they
> :shaved ~30% off his worldstone. It's parallelization that doesn't make
> :a difference in his case, because his CPU and FSB are fast enough that
> :the I/O system is left completely in the dust. This is a 900 MHz box,
> :probably with a 100 MHz or 133 MHz FSB, not the old 486DX33 you have
> :lying in a corner.
> :
> :DES
> :--
> :Dag-Erling Smorgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> A suspect a good chunk of that is not using -pipe. I would be
> interested in buildworld numbers with -pipe vs with -pipe + softupdates.
> Without -pipe softupdates will make a huge difference due to temporary
> file creation & deletion.
>
> When Kirk first tested softupdates against buildworld, he explicitly
> tested it with and without -pipe and found that much of the performance
> benefit (for buildworld) occured when not using -pipe.
The times I reported earlier are all with -pipe and are on an AMD
Thunderbird 900, with 256 MB of PC-133 memory, and using 3 - ATA-66
HD's on different controllers. The elapsed time dropped from 58:16 to
45:54 by using softupdates.
Kent
>
> -Matt
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
--
Kent Stewart
Richland, WA
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://kstewart.urx.com/kstewart/index.html
FreeBSD News http://daily.daemonnews.org/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
