From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-fx0-f210.google.com ([209.85.220.210]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Nh5qJ-0002jH-94 for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Mon, 15 Feb 2010 19:38:50 +0100 Received: by fxm2 with SMTP id 2so2201881fxm.27 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 2010 10:36:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:from:to:subject :message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=bEXyfwIDFTjnHa18pnl52kNrCrn8tSkvh/2VWOgWY6s=; b=xDhN5Cle8wmgyPcQZFuzzZxNHYM2fVuHp3a+oPCW+qKdAODc0CYC+tsHq4G63q9ytX T115/z2C/1s0hito6WvjJj8BFknn5WUzh8Fom9xAukhikZT9oFBNsLTa/dLfeFXTe/Vb me2AIooAlY061XUjrxkX7vAqHACCNBkrbKFns= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=DzEmXExeP9X2JBP3iMcFQeJRcBpuDvobOStmBHghPMIh5LRql2gM99swYRFiod+7rl dIKVP+xqwzBEYcto0JGcFxFIim67KvuzPN52UIgFFc9dhK1mEnEvH7ap5UKC6ceQx/Ve PN5UxYx7S0cgfzFi7QwDQ4d7f1xjlVAW8DmwI= Received: by 10.223.7.69 with SMTP id c5mr6536749fac.14.1266258969373; Mon, 15 Feb 2010 10:36:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (161-24.13.24.78.awnet.cz [78.24.13.161]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 15sm3128974fxm.6.2010.02.15.10.36.06 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 15 Feb 2010 10:36:07 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 19:36:04 +0100 From: Martin Jansa To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org Message-ID: <20100215183604.GC3233@jama> References: <20100214135613.GF5364@jama> <4B79673B.50108@balister.org> <20100215171952.GA3233@jama> <4B799100.7090203@mwester.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4B799100.7090203@mwester.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 209.85.220.210 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: martin.jansa@gmail.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:20:07 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on linuxtogo.org); Unknown failure Subject: Re: Using bitbake in minimal chroot environment X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 18:38:50 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 12:22:56PM -0600, Mike Westerhof wrote: > So my conclusion is that I/O is not the bottleneck for my OE builds, and > that's the only area where a VM is significantly different in terms of > performance (at least how I use VMs; perhaps other builds may observe > differences). Interesting! out of curiosity, how many threads were you using for that test? I'm using: PARALLEL_MAKE="-j4" BB_NUMBER_THREADS = "2" for builds with my 1x AMD Phenom workstation at home and I would expect even more I/O with more concurrent threads. I didn't perform any sophisticated benchmark, but when I was using tmpfs I compared build times with genlop/qlop gentoo utility which shows history of all performed builds with time it used. So I've seen significant speedup when switched from single-drive to tmpfs, then not so significant slowdown when switched from tmpfs to raid0. But then I didn't recheck diff between single-drive builds and raid0 (because versions built were usually quite different) Kind regards, -- uin:136542059 jid:Martin.Jansa@gmail.com Jansa Martin sip:jamasip@voip.wengo.fr JaMa