From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Feb 29 14:22:23 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0707D16A4CE for ; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 14:22:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from alpha.siliconlandmark.com (alpha.siliconlandmark.com [209.69.98.4]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B89C643D1F for ; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 14:22:22 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from andy@siliconlandmark.com) Received: from alpha.siliconlandmark.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) i1TMMGNv056858; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 17:22:16 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from andy@siliconlandmark.com) Received: from localhost (andy@localhost)i1TMMFo2056855; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 17:22:15 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from andy@siliconlandmark.com) X-Authentication-Warning: alpha.siliconlandmark.com: andy owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 17:22:15 -0500 (EST) From: Andre Guibert de Bruet To: Evren Yurtesen In-Reply-To: <20040229193302.GA90729@luke.immure.com> Message-ID: <20040229165606.J52152@alpha.siliconlandmark.com> References: <20040228144714.P8264-100000@oahu.WURLDLINK.NET> <4041B8C1.8000309@ispro.net.tr> <20040229164815.GA88163@luke.immure.com> <404226DF.3070809@ispro.net.tr> <20040229193302.GA90729@luke.immure.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-MailScanner: Found to be clean cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: buildworld times X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 22:22:23 -0000 On Sun, 29 Feb 2004, Bob Willcox wrote: > On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 07:52:31PM +0200, Evren Yurtesen wrote: > > Sorry, my mistake...I guess it was taking longer than 15 minutes... :( > > 41m51.44s real 24m52.18s user 14m56.58s sys > > > > I dont know how could I get 15 last time, if I forgot to do make clean > > or something, or a lot of stuff was cached in the memory maybe? I think > > I did it 2 times in a row :) I guess doing from a memory disk would > > enhance things a lot. > > I've never experienced _that_ big (3-fold) of difference when running > buildworlds back-to-back though. Even on a somewhat idle machine with multiple gigabytes of high-bandwidth memory, you're only going to be shaving a couple of minutes. Buildworld times are strongly affected by the underlying storage's seek time and write latency. Unless you're running bonnie++ for the second benchmark, these numbers are likely to not be from the same machine. Wanna rerun the test? Regards, Andy > Andre Guibert de Bruet | Enterprise Software Consultant > > Silicon Landmark, LLC. | http://siliconlandmark.com/ >