On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 10:44:42AM -0800, Peter Wemm wrote:
> >
> > There's a problem here. I tried to configure an SMP kernel but when it
> > booted the fxp0 (Compaq dual eepro100 adapter) got timeout errors and
> > wouldn't work. I went back and did the config/make on the GENERIC
> > kernel a
Robin Cutshaw wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 12:21:26PM -0800, Peter Wemm wrote:
> > >
> > > Any ideas as to why it would take almost three times longer to build
> > > on FreeBSD?
> >
> > This is probably a silly question, but you did recompile the kernel for
> > SMP, right?
> >
>
> Actually
Robin Cutshaw wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 12:21:26PM -0800, Peter Wemm wrote:
> > >
> > > Any ideas as to why it would take almost three times longer to build
> > > on FreeBSD?
> >
> > This is probably a silly question, but you did recompile the kernel for
> > SMP, right?
> >
>
> Actually
* Robin Cutshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010221 06:07] wrote:
>
> OK, I set softupdates on the disk/partition that the build source/target
> is on. It made no difference in timing. I then created a memory disk,
> set softupdates on it, and mounted it as /tmp. AMAZINGLY, the build
> went from 2:50
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 09:02:07AM -0500, Robin Cutshaw wrote:
>
> > Have you tuned the FreeBSD kernel? It still ships with a worst-case
> > configuration so that it runs optimally on i386 cpus. :-( Copy GENERIC
> > to something else and remove all but 'cpu i686', rebuild and install.
> > Also,
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 12:21:26PM -0800, Peter Wemm wrote:
> >
> > Any ideas as to why it would take almost three times longer to build
> > on FreeBSD?
>
> This is probably a silly question, but you did recompile the kernel for
> SMP, right?
>
Actually, I was using the stock GENERIC UP kernel
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 09:36:18AM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> * Robin Cutshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010221 06:07] wrote:
> >
> > OK, I set softupdates on the disk/partition that the build source/target
> > is on. It made no difference in timing. I then created a memory disk,
> > set softup
> Yup: 4.x sucks at SMP. Try the comparison again with uniprocessor
> kernels - I expect you'll see a much smaller difference.
I rather doubt that SMP has anything whatsoever to do with this.
4.x's SMP implementation may be far from optimal, but I've done a lot
of my own uniprocessor vs 2 vs 4 C
Robin Cutshaw wrote:
>
> We just got a couple of Compaq 8500 quad Xeon PIII 700 boxes as daily
> build servers for the XFree86 tree. I loaded SuSE Linux 7.0 on one
> box and FreeBSD 4.2-RELEASE on the other. I was surprised to see the
> large difference in build times. The Linux box compiled i
HAve you turned on soft updates on your object and target file systems?
Synchronous file system events can have a large impact on complex
compiles; using -pipe can mitigate the effect fairly significantly. If
you want to compare Linux and FreeBSD with more similar file system
semantics, remount
Robin Cutshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Any ideas as to why it would take almost three times longer to build
> on FreeBSD?
Yup: 4.x sucks at SMP. Try the comparison again with uniprocessor
kernels - I expect you'll see a much smaller difference.
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smorgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED
11 matches
Mail list logo
