At 2:08 PM +0900 11/23/04, Rob wrote:
Hi,
I have tested following with FreeBSD 5.3-Stable.
On several different PCs I have used
make -j$n buildworld
with $n ranging from 1 to 9.
Although people suggest "-j4" as optimal in general
case, I have come to a very different conclusion...
So, I finally
David Schwartz wrote:
According to my formula:
time(minutes) = 1e5 / ( speed(MHz) * nproc )
and taking nproc = 1, this results in
time = 1e5 / 2798.66 = 36 minutes
Quite accurate for your system as well. At least this formula gives a
resonable estimate about the compile time.
Apparently HT does
> According to my formula:
>
>time(minutes) = 1e5 / ( speed(MHz) * nproc )
>
> and taking nproc = 1, this results in
>
>time = 1e5 / 2798.66 = 36 minutes
>
> Quite accurate for your system as well. At least this formula gives a
> resonable estimate about the compile time.
>
> Apparently HT
Frank Behrens wrote:
I read this thread with interest and saw the question, how the system
wil behave with hyperthreading. Should I not benchmark my system?
here you have the results. The interpretation is left to the experts.
IMHO HT is not as useless as expected. :-)
I did not switch off SMP w
I read this thread with interest and saw the question, how the system
wil behave with hyperthreading. Should I not benchmark my system?
here you have the results. The interpretation is left to the experts.
IMHO HT is not as useless as expected. :-)
I did not switch off SMP with sysctl, but used
I read this thread with interest and saw the question, how the system
wil behave with hyperthreading. Should I not benchmark my system?
here you have the results. The interpretation is left to the experts.
IMHO HT is not as useless as expected. :-)
I did not switch off SMP with sysctl, but used
Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 11:44:53AM +0900, Rob wrote:
Nick Barnes wrote:
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 16:19:02 +0900, Rob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
time(minutes) * speed(MHz) * nproc / 1000 MHz
Looking at your examples, it seems you divide by 1e5, not by 1000.
Sorry, yes you're righ
On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 11:44:53AM +0900, Rob wrote:
> Nick Barnes wrote:
> >On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 16:19:02 +0900, Rob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>time(minutes) * speed(MHz) * nproc / 1000 MHz
> >
> >
> >Looking at your examples, it seems you divide by 1e5, not by 1000.
>
> Sorry, ye
Nick Barnes wrote:
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 16:19:02 +0900, Rob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
time(minutes) * speed(MHz) * nproc / 1000 MHz
Looking at your examples, it seems you divide by 1e5, not by 1000.
Sorry, yes you're right.
In other words, buildworld is CPU bound and takes about 6e12 clock
cy
On Thu, Nov 25, 2004 at 11:14:42AM +0100, Ronald Klop wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 01:28:55 -0800, Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, Nov 25, 2004 at 10:09:35AM +0100, Ronald Klop wrote:
> >
> >>Would all this work for 'make index' for the ports also? Or is this more
> >>io
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 16:19:02 +0900, Rob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > time(minutes) * speed(MHz) * nproc / 1000 MHz
Looking at your examples, it seems you divide by 1e5, not by 1000. In
other words, buildworld is CPU bound and takes about 6e12 clock
cycles. Use -j.
Nick B
___
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 01:28:55 -0800, Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Thu, Nov 25, 2004 at 10:09:35AM +0100, Ronald Klop wrote:
Would all this work for 'make index' for the ports also? Or is this more
io bound?
I can't test this myself, because my laptop is to slow for making these
tes
On Thu, Nov 25, 2004 at 10:09:35AM +0100, Ronald Klop wrote:
> Would all this work for 'make index' for the ports also? Or is this more
> io bound?
> I can't test this myself, because my laptop is to slow for making these
> tests any fun.
Based on my tests, 'make index' is only faster with -j
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 16:19:02 +0900, Rob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Rob wrote:
Brian Szymanski wrote:
Did you try any machines that used Hyperthreading? I'd be interested to
see how those machines fare based on the number of logical and real
CPUs.
Although people suggest "-j4" as optimal in gene
Rob wrote:
Brian Szymanski wrote:
Did you try any machines that used Hyperthreading? I'd be interested to
see how those machines fare based on the number of logical and real CPUs.
Although people suggest "-j4" as optimal in general
case, I have come to a very different conclusion:
1) single CPU wi
Brian Szymanski wrote:
Did you try any machines that used Hyperthreading? I'd be interested to
see how those machines fare based on the number of logical and real CPUs.
Although people suggest "-j4" as optimal in general
case, I have come to a very different conclusion:
1) single CPU with enough R
Did you try any machines that used Hyperthreading? I'd be interested to
see how those machines fare based on the number of logical and real CPUs.
> Although people suggest "-j4" as optimal in general
> case, I have come to a very different conclusion:
>
> 1) single CPU with enough RAM (2 GHz, 512
Rob wrote:
> I have tested following with FreeBSD 5.3-Stable.
>
> On several different PCs I have used
> make -j$n buildworld
> with $n ranging from 1 to 9.
>
> Although people suggest "-j4" as optimal in general
> case, I have come to a very different conclusion:
>
> 1) single CPU with enough
> With these simple tests, I come to the conclusion that
> "make -j$n buildworld" is best with n = number of CPUs.
> Does that make sense?
Yes, I believe this makes sense. The recommendations made in the handbook
(n >= 4) date back from the time when IO was the bottleneck in the
compilation proce
Hi,
I have tested following with FreeBSD 5.3-Stable.
On several different PCs I have used
make -j$n buildworld
with $n ranging from 1 to 9.
Although people suggest "-j4" as optimal in general
case, I have come to a very different conclusion:
1) single CPU with enough RAM (2 GHz, 512 MB)
there
20 matches
Mail list logo
