From owner-freebsd-amd64@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 24 14:51:35 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 A5A7E16A4D2 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:51:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from host142.ipowerweb.com (host142.ipowerweb.com [66.235.193.61]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 898E043D1F for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:51:35 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jem@thejemreport.com) Received: (qmail 34789 invoked from network); 24 Feb 2004 22:51:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thejemreport.com) (66.66.218.250) by 0 with SMTP; 24 Feb 2004 22:51:07 -0000 Message-ID: <403BD508.7080307@thejemreport.com> Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 17:49:44 -0500 From: Jem Matzan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040219 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "'freebsd-amd64@FreeBSD.org'" References: <1077658664.92943.15.camel@.rochester.rr.com> <20040224215847.GC6356@Odin.AC.HMC.Edu> <403BCA6B.2050908@thejemreport.com> <200402241736.55911.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <200402241736.55911.jhb@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------060003000702020300050409" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.1 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 22:51:35 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------060003000702020300050409 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit John Baldwin wrote: >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. > > > Ah -- I wasn't considering all of the possibilities. It was the AMD64 form i386 crossbuild that wasn't working for me (while actually trying to turn a working i386 system into an AMD64 build -- it was the installworld that failed and broke everything to hell. Now I remember). So instead I'll build a SPARC or ALPHA world on both AMD64 and i386. Of course this means another 18 hours of testing... unless I can build the i386 world with AMD64, in which case I only have half of everything to do again. -Jem --------------060003000702020300050409--