Date: Fri, 1 May 2020 12:51:26 +0200 From: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> To: Matthias Gamsjager <mgamsjager@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD-speedometer? Message-ID: <20200501125126.4cb4076b.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: <CA%2BD9QhtqhdPxGBHzmYPTfri_ZvqAE9UaXQ9S5jNu5gdGwhNogA@mail.gmail.com> References: <FBFC422E-71A7-4AB4-9AD8-C4D3FB5E7CBE@kukulies.org> <CA%2BD9QhtqhdPxGBHzmYPTfri_ZvqAE9UaXQ9S5jNu5gdGwhNogA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 1 May 2020 11:21:56 +0200, Matthias Gamsjager wrote: > We have binary package so you don't have to compile your self. > Of course it is a choice to compile everything but why would you want to do > that on a small machine? Why? Especially because! :-) In ye olden times, you often used source-based installation methods to tweak the amount of what gets installed (memory footprint), and you dealt with cimpile-time options to get faster software - faster than what the default configuration allowed. For example, system tools could be omitted, or the kernel could be configured in a way to only contain the stuff needed for a particular system. It was also useful for ports where you needed to deviate from the default options, or where you were forced (!) to use source-based installs due to licensing restrictions. For those who wish to track -STABE or -HEAD, source-based installations are mandatory. Maybe someone wants to check if a specific patch works as intended - the whole system or just one of its components can be built and installed. This currently is impossible with binary packages. While I personally enjoy using binary packages, they are not an answer to every scenario, because there simply is no "one size fits all egg-laying wool-milk-sow". Machines equipped with slower disks and less memory will of course need more time to build something. This is why several users keep their machine running at night where it can compile happily. On a 150 MHz Pentium with 64 MB RAM, building a kernel required a few hours, and the whole system needed 24 hours to build. With today's hardware, compile times are faster. And especially for building ports, some people use their own build servers (real or VM) for this task. > If you really want to see how fast it could go. Spin up a machine on AWS > with the memory and CPUs you would compare it to. Comparing bare metal to virtual metal is like cheating in statistics - choose your test subjects in a specific way to get any result you want. :-) -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20200501125126.4cb4076b.freebsd>