From owner-freebsd-arch Sun Feb 17 11:16:29 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [216.240.41.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC7B137B400; Sun, 17 Feb 2002 11:16:25 -0800 (PST) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by apollo.backplane.com (8.11.6/8.9.1) id g1HJGG681111; Sun, 17 Feb 2002 11:16:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 11:16:16 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Dillon Message-Id: <200202171916.g1HJGG681111@apollo.backplane.com> To: "M. Warner Losh" Cc: julian@elischer.org, arch@FreeBSD.ORG, jhb@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: revised buildworld comparison stable vs current References: <200202171824.g1HIOnw71118@apollo.backplane.com> <20020217.110608.94337769.imp@village.org> Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG :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 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message