Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 00:11:19 -0700 From: Mark Millard <marklmi@yahoo.com> To: bob prohaska <fbsd@www.zefox.net> Cc: Trev <freebsd-arm@sentry.org>, freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RPI3 swap experiments Message-ID: <AB5EE2E4-B2FD-4CA9-A993-04C2A4BE10AE@yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20180723063526.GA45726@www.zefox.net> References: <20180629155131.GA35717@www.zefox.net> <c6b8842a-fcc5-8e11-5a03-ba76eb3c5dea@sentry.org> <20180629233937.GC35717@www.zefox.net> <0f137e06-214a-3e8c-a216-f061ec04ac2c@sentry.org> <20180630005145.GA43801@www.zefox.net> <6f3406e2-71f3-d0c2-2b65-703e1a1d3c25@sentry.org> <8e92b2b7-da61-3efb-7231-9fac76b2c1d4@sentry.org> <ba33d8a7-a849-3893-8016-0765ebe1c51f@sentry.org> <2deaaec3-f78f-0b09-5ca7-27e14c6979f9@sentry.org> <bc8da02c-4465-9634-6fd0-0af4c63aa49d@sentry.org> <20180723063526.GA45726@www.zefox.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2018-Jul-22, at 11:35 PM, bob prohaska <fbsd at www.zefox.net> wrote: >> . . . > There is some reason to think "newer" Sandisk Extreme devices differ, = perhaps > in a bad way, from older devices. The older device in my tests is = model > SDCZ80-064G and is simply labeled USB3.0. The newer, troublesome = device > is model SDCZ800-064G and is labeled Extreme Go USB 3.1. There are = reports > that the Extreme Go is slower, advising to buy the older devices if = possible. >=20 > The USB3.1 flash drive is back in test, with the results of a j4 = buildworld > under r336567 at > http://www.zefox.net/~fbsd/rpi3/swaptests/r336567/ >=20 > The worst case results are still fairly dismal, close to a minute. All = the > swap was on microSD, so OOMA didn't strike and buildworld completed = successfully. > Near as I can tell no errors were reported on the console. Rebuilds that do not rebuild the llvm materials (clang, lld, lldb, etc.) = are not all that comparable to ones that do. (This is visible in the time differences in = the builds that complete.) The llvm related build activity likely involves most of the = potential swapping, for example. Also: lots of I/O. There can be two rebuilds of some of the llvm material. One stage with = such is the cross-compiler: --- buildworld --- make[1]: "/usr/src/Makefile.inc1" line 341: SYSTEM_COMPILER: Determined = that CC=3Dcc matches the source tree. Not bootstrapping a = cross-compiler. make[1]: "/usr/src/Makefile.inc1" line 346: SYSTEM_LINKER: Determined = that LD=3Dld matches the source tree. Not bootstrapping a cross-linker. (it was not rebuilt in the example). The other involves the build of the = system llvm materials for use in the (potentially) installed system, such as the system's clang. Taking an environment that worked for lack of llvm related rebuilds may = not well indicate the result for rebuilds that would try to rebuild the llvm = related materials. It is something to consider in what builds are compared, how they are compared, and what one infers from comparisons. =3D=3D=3D Mark Millard marklmi at yahoo.com ( dsl-only.net <http://dsl-only.net/>; went away in early 2018-Mar)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AB5EE2E4-B2FD-4CA9-A993-04C2A4BE10AE>