On Fri, 29 Nov 2002, David Syphers wrote:

> On Friday 29 November 2002 12:12 pm, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 12:11:42PM -0500, Robert Ames wrote:
> >
> > > 2. My machine is a Pentium 166 with only 16 MB of RAM.  I'm trying
> > > to rebuild the kernel and so far the compile has been running for
> > > almost 24 hours and it's not finished yet.  Is this to be expected?
> >
> > Yes.  gcc 3.x is slower, and the kernel contains more code.  Your
> > machine is probably swapping a lot just doing the compilation, which
> > will make it even slower.
>
> Out of curiosity, how much slower is a 5.x kernel compilation than a 4.x, on
> average?

I'm not sure about 4.x, but a -current kernel with no modules takes
about 3 times as long as a RELENG_3 kernel compiled by the 4.x compiler
used to take (about 130 seconds instead of 43 seconds on an Athlon
1600 overclocked.  The kernels are supposed to have a similar set of
options.  All times are all times are after running "make depend" which
takes about 8 seconds for RELENG_3 and 11 seconds for -current.  gcc-3
in April 2002 pessimized the compile times from 76 seconds to 114
seconds for -current and from 43 seconds to 66 seconds for RELENG_3.
Further development of -current pessimized the compile time from 114
seconds to 130 seconds.  Compiling LINT took 437 seconds on Sep 22.
IIRC, compiling modules takes about the same time as compiling LINT.

> My 486, 66 MHz and 16 MB RAM, compiles a 4.x kernel in about 3
> hours. Thus by Robert's data point, -current seems at least 10-15 times
> slower...

Ouch.  I remember being happy when upgrading from a 486/33 with 16MB
to a 486DX2/66 with 32MB reduced my kernel compile time from about 16
minutes to about 9 minutes.  Your 16MB of RAM is probably not nearly
enough for today's bloat.  Look at the real, user and system times and
systat/vmstat/top to see if there is a lot of idle time caused by
waiting for disks and/or paging to disk.

Bruce


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to