From owner-freebsd-hackers  Fri Jul 26 08:36:57 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id IAA02461
          for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 08:36:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dyson.iquest.net (dyson.iquest.net [198.70.144.127])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA02454
          for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 08:36:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from root@localhost) by dyson.iquest.net (8.7.5/8.6.9) id KAA03083; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 10:36:13 -0500 (EST)
From: "John S. Dyson" <toor@dyson.iquest.net>
Message-Id: <199607261536.KAA03083@dyson.iquest.net>
Subject: Re: mfs /tmp, ffs /tmp or -pipe
To: mark@seeware.DIALix.oz.au (Mark Hannon)
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 10:36:12 -0500 (EST)
Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <Dv6AAq.3y4@seeware.DIALix.oz.au> from "Mark Hannon" at Jul 26, 96 10:54:26 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24 ME8]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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??
> 
I would expect that -pipe is best unless you are low on memory.  You
might actually find that 'ffs /tmp' is best on a 4MB or 8MB machine.  I
normally use an 'mfs /tmp' so that I don't have to change whatever
makefiles that I have.

John