See https://www.flexense.com/usb3_vs_sata_disk_performance_comparison.html
Here local SATA3 vs USB3 comparison is done. While not directly comparable,
the only case where throughput is below what you can push through GbE is
single threaded small file copying. For every other case tested, GbE will
yeah, but check small blocksize random read/write vs. AoE or 9p over
ethernet. I'm not sure how efficient usb3 in terms of latency :)
On 9/21/19, Bakul Shah wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 09:53:07 +0100 Richard Miller <9f...@hamnavoe.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> > Another option worth exploring may
>> > be
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 09:53:07 +0100 Richard Miller <9f...@hamnavoe.com> wrote:
>
> > Another option worth exploring may
> > be AOE as pi4 has a GbE (I haven't tried this yet).
>
> My go test builders are running with "local" fossil on a slice
> of disk provided over AoE from an atom server. I
hi,
thanks richard, this is perfect
i could not have asked for more.
-Steve
On 20 Sep 2019, at 9:43 am, Richard Miller <9f...@hamnavoe.com> wrote:
>> Only lightly tested.
>
> In a sense, plan9/arm go is tested as well as any other platform:
> under the go continuous development process,
> If you mean the go compiler itself, hopefully the 2GB VM you
> get on 9p/pi4 is enough to compile the compiler using a
> cross-compiled bootstrap compiler.
The compiler can compile itself natively on a pi2 or pi3.
No need to activate swap space, unless you want to run the
full test suite.
>
> Only lightly tested.
In a sense, plan9/arm go is tested as well as any other platform:
under the go continuous development process, every time a change
is made to the compiler or runtime library, a complete test suite
is run on builder machines for every supported architecture and
operating
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 06:29:31 +0100 Steve Simon wrote:
>
> my plan was to build and run/debug go on a raspberry pi 4 running plan9, not
> to cross compile.
If you mean go programs, the compile speed is tolerable
provided you are not building very large programs.
If you mean the go compiler
Go builds on Plan9 suffer from the post-1.9 performance regression.
> On Sep 19, 2019, at 10:29 PM, Steve Simon wrote:
>
> hi,
>
> my plan was to build and run/debug go on a raspberry pi 4 running plan9, not
> to cross compile.
>
> i am confident in the linux cross compile environment i was
hi,
my plan was to build and run/debug go on a raspberry pi 4 running plan9, not to
cross compile.
i am confident in the linux cross compile environment i was just concerned
about the plan9 os/runtime support for the pi.
i guess it comes down to plan9 os interface for the arm.
people said it
Matthew Veety writes:
> Building anything on a raspberry pi is a bit of a chore. I highly=20
> recommend running go on your cpu server and/or local to your filesystem.=20
> The generated binaries seem to work fine.
Go does wonderfully when it comes to generating binaries for
non-native
Building anything on a raspberry pi is a bit of a chore. I highly
recommend running go on your cpu server and/or local to your filesystem.
The generated binaries seem to work fine. I haven't found any bugs, but I
haven't run anything serious on on my pis.
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019, Michael Misch
I’ve used it, it works fine. Building on a raspberry pi, on the other hand is a
chore when using Go.
> On Sep 19, 2019, at 3:46 PM, Bakul Shah wrote:
>
> On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 22:41:48 +0100 Steve Simon wrote:
>>
>> does go run under plan9 on the radpberry pi or only on x86?
>
> I haven't
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 22:41:48 +0100 Steve Simon wrote:
>
> does go run under plan9 on the radpberry pi or only on x86?
I haven't tried a native build but cross-compiling with
cd `go env GOROOT`/src
GOOS=plan9 GOARCH=arm ./bootstrap.bash
seems to work. bunzip2 the resulting .tbz file in
hi all,
does go run under plan9 on the radpberry pi or only on x86?
thanks,
-Steve
14 matches
Mail list logo
