From owner-freebsd-current Tue Nov 4 17:19:29 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA25279 for current-outgoing; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 17:19:29 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current) Received: from dyson.iquest.net (dyson.iquest.net [198.70.144.127]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA25265 for ; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 17:19:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from toor@dyson.iquest.net) Received: (from root@localhost) by dyson.iquest.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) id UAA13860; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 20:19:09 -0500 (EST) From: "John S. Dyson" Message-Id: <199711050119.UAA13860@dyson.iquest.net> Subject: Re: More on fast make world... In-Reply-To: from Alex at "Nov 4, 97 05:16:17 pm" To: garbanzo@hooked.net (Alex) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 20:19:09 -0500 (EST) Cc: toor@dyson.iquest.net, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL31 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Alex said: > > > On Tue, 4 Nov 1997, John S. Dyson wrote: > > > > Silly question: How do I do that? Last I tried I ended in a panic... > > > How large? Where to mount? /tmp or /var/tmp? I foreget ... > > > > > > Without these improvements, we are at 102 minutes end-to-end. Let's go for > > > sub-hour make world! > > > > > > > This is my fstab entry. You'll also have to add the MFS option to the kernel. > > The -s param should be smaller than your amount of swap. To add -pipe, just > > edit your /etc/make.conf file and add -pipe to your CFLAGS entry. > > > > swap /tmp mfs rw,-s=210000,-b=16384,-f=2048 0 0 > > Ok, this is probably a silly question, but here it goes. What exactly is > MFS? Is it akin to a ramdisk? Or is it just swap space that's emulating > a drive slice? If it's realy out of swap space, how would that actually > improve performance? > Think of it as a ramdisk, that is backed by swap if it is needed. It "soft-fails". Our implementation isn't as efficient as it could be, but there is almost no reason that a swap-backed ramdisk should be much slower than a non-swap-backed ramdisk. -- John dyson@freebsd.org jdyson@nc.com