From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Jul 26 08:13:04 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id IAA01586 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 08:13:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from haywire.DIALix.COM (root@haywire.DIALix.COM [192.203.228.65]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA01575 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 08:12:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from news@localhost) by haywire.DIALix.COM (8.7.5/8.7.3) id XAA27929 for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 23:12:28 +0800 (WST) Received: from GATEWAY by haywire.DIALix.COM with netnews for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org (problems to: usenet@haywire.dialix.com) To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 22:54:26 GMT From: mark@seeware.DIALix.oz.au (Mark Hannon) Message-ID: Organization: Private FreeBSD site Subject: mfs /tmp, ffs /tmp or -pipe Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Hi, I've just been playing around with different ways to compile the kernel. My, completely simple, measurement of kernel compile time on a 2.1.5 P-100 are: ffs /tmp : 7:50 seconds mfs /tmp : 7:30 seconds (with TMPDIR=/tmp) cc -pipe : 7:22 seconds Fairly inconclusive and probably not repeatable. Anyway, what I am asking is are there any documented advantages of using an mfs /tmp?? Is -pipe a better option for compiles?? Rgds/mark -- +-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+ | Mark Hannon,| FreeBSD - Free Unix for your PC| mark@seeware.DIALix.oz.au| | Melbourne, | PGP key available by fingering | epamha@epa.ericsson.se | | Australia | seeware@melbourne.DIALix.oz.au | | +-=-=-=-=-=-=-+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+