Gilles Espinasse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I doubt distcc is a big gain on x86_64. > CPU is so fast comparing to the network and with lot of internal cache that > minimize the gain you could achieve using other machines. > That's supported on IPCop and the gain reported was only 5% adding another > machine with same power. So that's not worst the work and probably almost > nobody really use it. > Should be more usefull if you have a cloud of slow alpha, pcc or sparc > machines. > To be more efficient with less network traffic needed, you would need a > system able to distribute an entire package compilation (when packages are > fully independant) at each machine. I am not so sure distcc will help on > that scheme. >
I realize that I am probably not the typical case, but I saw a substantial gain - I had four machines (10 cores total) hooked up via GigE, so network latency was not so much an issue for me. But you have a good point in that being able to distribute the packages themselves would be even better; I'll contemplate good ways to do that; at the very least, in order to support the "parallel package build" idea, one would need a tag for a step specifying which steps it is dependent on. > In contrary, ccache is approximately an overall 25% gain after the first > build. > That really help compiling the kernel for example (gain should be 50% > there). > So in light of that, I'll rephrase that to "support for compiler wrappers" in general. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
