On 9/10/17 11:14 AM, Alex Lennon wrote: > > > On 10/09/2017 17:06, Mark Hatle wrote: >> On 9/10/17 2:00 AM, Usman Haider wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Can someone please recommend some good machine for yocto environment and >>> building sdks. I am interested in RAM, hard disk space, processor. >> You want fast I/O, as much RAM and as many (fast) cores as you can afford. I >> don't think there is a single answer as what is 'best'. It also depends on >> which Yocto Project versions, and which layers you are using as to which >> combination is best. >> >> I run builds on my laptop, 4-core/8-thread & SSD and 16 GB of ram from a few >> years ago. It's fast, but I wouldn't want to do all of my development on it. >> >> I've had 8-core/16-thread (32GB ram/standard disk), 16-core/32-thread (72GB >> ram/SAS-3 RAID), 24-core/48-thread (64GB ram/SATA - software RAID), >> 72-core/144 >> thread (256 GB ram/hardware raid/SAS-3), and recently upgraded to >> 96-core/192-thread (256 GB ram/hardware raid/SAS-3). >> >> I would not go below quad-core (8-thread) myself. You can get a quad core, >> good >> quality machine for $1000 or less these day. If you move up to the larger >> machines, you can even be able to get to a 24-core for less then $5000. By >> the >> time you get to 96-core and all of the googles you are likely talking $50000 >> or >> more. >> >> By clock raid, the 24-core machine is the fastest.. While the 96-core >> monster >> can do the builds the quickest. But when you figure out >> cost/performance/etc.. >> the 24-core is probably the best performance per dollar, and with adequate >> RAM >> (I'd say at least 64GB if not 128GB), and fast I/O you'll probably get the >> lowest price for the best performance in that category. >> >> If you need sheer speed and price is no option, then the (4 CPU w/ 24 core >> each) >> 96-core monster (or even better) is what you want to go with. 256GB ram >> would >> be a minimum with that configuration (I'm not sure if more is actually >> helpful, >> I rarely end up in swap -- but I go get into situations where more then 50% >> of >> ram is used.) With that many cores, disk I/O starts to become obvious. So >> faster the better... SSDs would be the fastest, but of course the most >> expensive. >> >> If your employer is paying for the machine, you may be able to get a better >> then >> normal machine by explaining how much time a faster machine will save and how >> comparing to your salary a machine is inexpensive. (If you are a contractor >> or >> student, that changes of course.) :) >> >> So my point is really, figure out how much money you have to spend. My rule >> of >> thumb is roughly: >> >> 1) Buy as many cores as you can. Try to get a CPU that has Hyperthreading or >> equivalent to double the effective core count. Fastest processing speed >> helps >> in repetitive cases vs full system builds. >> >> So if the choice is a 24 core @ 2.2GHz vs 22 core @ 2.5, I'd probably go with >> the 22-core. While if it was 24 core @ 2.2GHz vs 8 core @ 4.2 GHz, I'd go >> with >> the 24 core. >> >> 2) Try to get at least 1 GB of ram per thread (2 GB per core..) You can cut >> back on the ram (if necessary) once you hit 72 threads or so. (72 threads >> right now seems to cover most of the parallelization in a full system build. >> There are points in the system where it can parallelize MUCH more, but they >> are >> fairly rare.) >> >> 3) You need fast disks. Software RAID works fine, but you likely need to >> buy at >> least a couple of disk to boost performance. SSDs are fast, but lots of >> builds >> take space, so fast SATA or even better SAS drives are the best performance >> per >> cost. > > This brings to mind a related question I keep coming back to as to the > economics of a docker (or similar) image running a fast Yocto build in > the cloud. > > i.e. set config params -> bring up server image on plaform A/B/C -> > perform build taking time X/Y/Z -> store output images -> bring down > server == $ ? > > I find myself asking what the optimal cost per-build would be using this > approach...
I helped someone do some very -preliminary- figured a few years ago. The processing was 'cheap', but between storage and network transfer costs.. it was cheaper to buy a reasonable machine.. payback time was only a few months. (cloud 'storage' is often very slow as well, because there are expectations of migration and things like that.) So as of a few years ago at least, the economics didn't factory the cloud -- yet. --Mark > Cheers, > > Alex > -- _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
