Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 11:16:16 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@village.org> Cc: julian@elischer.org, arch@FreeBSD.ORG, jhb@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: revised buildworld comparison stable vs current Message-ID: <200202171916.g1HJGG681111@apollo.backplane.com> References: <200202171824.g1HIOnw71118@apollo.backplane.com> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0202171034300.39539-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> <20020217.110608.94337769.imp@village.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
:So it looks like -current w/o invariants is 19% slower than -stable
:for the world-stone.
:
:Matt, is it safe to assume that the same tuning stuff is done on both
:-stable and -current? And that the -current numbers don't represent
:building, say profile, while the -stable ones don't. My gut tells me
:they are done the same since 19% is the ballpark of slowdown in
:-current I'd expect...
:
:Warner
Yes, my stable builds are fairly close to what you would see in
production.
However, I do leave invariants turned on in -stable. I believe
invariants in -current create more of a burden then invariants in
stable so the comparison is still in the ballpark and we get a good
spread to judge things by when looking at the current-with-invariants
and current-without-invariants numbers vs the stable-with-invariants
number.
-Matt
Matthew Dillon
<dillon@backplane.com>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200202171916.g1HJGG681111>