From owner-freebsd-amd64@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 24 14:35:42 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C410C16A4CF for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:35:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail6.speakeasy.net (mail6.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.206]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A051C43D39 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:35:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 30313 invoked from network); 24 Feb 2004 22:35:41 -0000 Received: from dsl027-160-063.atl1.dsl.speakeasy.net (HELO server.baldwin.cx) ([216.27.160.63]) (envelope-sender ) encrypted SMTP for ; 24 Feb 2004 22:35:41 -0000 Received: from 10.50.40.205 (gw1.twc.weather.com [216.133.140.1]) by server.baldwin.cx (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i1OMZY28039453; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 17:35:35 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) From: John Baldwin To: amd64@FreeBSD.org Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 17:36:55 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.6 References: <1077658664.92943.15.camel@.rochester.rr.com> <20040224215847.GC6356@Odin.AC.HMC.Edu> <403BCA6B.2050908@thejemreport.com> In-Reply-To: <403BCA6B.2050908@thejemreport.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200402241736.55911.jhb@FreeBSD.org> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on server.baldwin.cx cc: Jem Matzan cc: "'freebsd-amd64@FreeBSD.org'" Subject: Re: Performance comparison, ULE vs 4BSD and AMD64 vs i386 X-BeenThere: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the AMD64 platform List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 22:35:42 -0000 On Tuesday 24 February 2004 05:04 pm, Jem Matzan wrote: > Brooks Davis wrote: > >On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 04:37:44PM -0500, Jem Matzan wrote: > >>How about AMD64 being slower than i386 on the same hardware? By > >>slower, I mean a buildworld -j4 took about 400 seconds longer in AMD64 > >>mode. > > > >You can't usefully compare compile times when you are compiling for > >a different instructions set. The work involved is rairly the same > >so the results are meaning less. If you could factor out the cost of > >building the native bootstrap tools since that isn't the same job on > >each machine, the speed of a cross buildworld would be an intresting > >test. For comparing i386 and amd64, I'd probably build an alpha or > >sparc64 world so the target would be entierly different. > > > >-- Brooks > > I figured that the world would be the same for both AMD64 and i386. That > really sucks that all of this data and all of that time has been more or > less wasted on doing buildworld time benchmarks. As far as I know it > isn't possible to do a crossbuild (I've tried before, and I read on the > list several weeks ago that it won't work). Do you have any suggestions > for measuring compile times? You can do a crossbuild easy, just do: make TARGET_ARCH=amd64 buildworld or subsitute whatever arch for amd64. -- John Baldwin <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org