>On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 05:03:15 +0200 (CEST)
>Uwe Düffert wrote:
>
> Same with glibc here: The difference between the slowest and the
> fastest run is just 0.3% (16m53.825 vs 16m57.186).
>
> Uwe
Well, my results are way more interesting. :)
Overnight builds, done while I was sleeping and therefor
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 02:18:47AM +0200, Uwe Düffert wrote:
>
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2010, Ken Moffat wrote:
>
> > But, I'm only ever comparing times on the same system, and this
> > package (abiword) was almost at the end of my build, so the amount
> > of '/' used is almost the same (for me, /home is
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 01:07:02PM +0200, Aleksandar Kuktin wrote:
> >On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 05:03:15 +0200 (CEST)
> >Uwe Düffert wrote:
> >
> > Same with glibc here: The difference between the slowest and the
> > fastest run is just 0.3% (16m53.825 vs 16m57.186).
> >
> > Uwe
>
> Well, my results a
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 03:49:35PM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
> >
> Thanks. So, it's a uniprocessor problem.
>
/me is still puzzled that my *original* builds of abiword on these
two machines (i.e. during the installation of my normal packages)
are faster than any of my repeats, but that's life.
>On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 17:28:33 +0100
>Ken Moffat wrote:
>
> This range of variation *probably* only applies to complex builds
> (lots of c++ and libtool) and is perhaps magnified by whatever
> abiword does for its own 'dolt' versions of libtool and friends.
> Thanks for all the helpful comments.
>
On 10/19/10, Ken Moffat wrote:
> /me is still puzzled that my *original* builds of abiword on these
> two machines (i.e. during the installation of my normal packages)
> are faster than any of my repeats, but that's life.
>
Make sure 1 SBU = 1 SBU.
Some versions (gcc, etc.) may take more time.
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 02:02:01PM -0400, linux fan wrote:
> On 10/19/10, Ken Moffat wrote:
>
> > /me is still puzzled that my *original* builds of abiword on these
> > two machines (i.e. during the installation of my normal packages)
> > are faster than any of my repeats, but that's life.
> >
>
On 10/19/10, Ken Moffat wrote:
>
> Umm, yes. Actually, I was really querying the *elapsed* time. But
I never can keep track of which apples are apples and which ones are
oranges, but just in case time happens to include find, du, and other
such operations, I notice that they do seem efficient
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010, Ken Moffat wrote:
> So, on the assumption that this variability is a uniprocessor
> feature, I'll conclude that a lightly loaded desktop can have at
> least a 15% range of build times.
Well, after all, do you really think this is astonishing? On a single core
machine just (co
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 18:38:48 -0400
linux fan wrote:
> start=$(date +%s)
> ... stuff happens ...
> end=$(date +%s)
> elaps=$(( end - start ))
>
That's an interesting suggestion. Thanks!
Andy
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.h
10 matches
Mail list logo
