relative to distcc, so we ran the distcc benchmarks
using various combinations of distcc and ccache.
We think we did everything right (e.g. we avoided using
NFS for DISTCC_DIR or CCACHE_DIR-- boy, was that slow),
but you can check for yourself - the data and scripts we used are online at
http://students.cs.tamu.edu/dzhang/distcc_result.html
Here's an excerpt of the results.
For the benefit of those whose mail clients use proportional
fonts, I'm sending this using HTML mail and picking a fixed
width font (though every fiber of my being hates doing so).
Runtime in seconds (smaller is better), average of five interleaved runs
ccache+
bench local ccache distcc-j8 distcc
cold hot cold hot -j4 -j8
gdb-5.3 54 101 38 39 26 41 32
httpd-2.0.43 78 86 43 62 44 55 55
samba-2.2.7 90 103 35 56 26 71 45
linux-2.5.51 261 259 86 77 51 106 66
wine-0.9.4 1335 1446 535 583 394 687 487
Same data, divided by first column so 1.0 is "same as local build"
Smaller is better
ccache+
bench local ccache distcc-j8 distcc
cold hot cold hot -j4 -j8
gdb-5.3 1.00 1.87 0.69 0.72 0.49 0.75 0.59
httpd-2.0.43 1.00 1.10 0.55 0.80 0.56 0.71 0.70
samba-2.2.7 1.00 1.14 0.39 0.62 0.29 0.79 0.50
linux-2.5.51 1.00 0.99 0.33 0.30 0.19 0.40 0.25
wine-0.9.4 1.00 1.08 0.40 0.44 0.29 0.51 0.36
The client was a uniprocessor 3.4GHz Pentium 4 with 3GB RAM.
The servers were eight dual 2.6GHz Pentium 4's with 2GB RAM.
Distcc was 2.18.3; ccache was 2.2.
Both client and servers were dedicated - nobody else was using the compile cluster.
The network was a studly corporate LAN, but other folks were around,
so the results are slightly suspect; we ran the whole test five times,
and used the average times, to guard against that a bit.
No big surprises there, but I thought folks might like to see the data.
- Dan
--
Wine for Windows ISVs: http://kegel.com/wine/isv
__ distcc mailing list http://distcc.samba.org/ To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/distcc