All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Gary Thomas <gary@mlbassoc.com>
To: Poky Project <poky@yoctoproject.org>
Subject: RPM vs IPK
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 08:05:14 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4DD5239A.30404@mlbassoc.com> (raw)

Building Poky for various targets, I see some striking differences
based on the packaging.  I'm building for the beagleboard (RPM)
and my own OMAP/3530 (IPK), so everything is the same for these
packages (same compiler, architecture, etc), only the package
method differs.  This was built on an otherwise idle box
4-way (Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU    Q6600  @ 2.40GHz), with
   BB_NUMBER_THREADS ?= "4"
   PARALLEL_MAKE ?= "-j 4"

Each of these tests are a complete build of the package, with
all dependencies already built.  For example, I use this sequence:
   % bitbake perl
   % bitbake perl -c clean
   % rm sstate-cache/sstate-perl-arm*
   % time bitbake perl

perl -      RPM                         IPK
        real    12m15.520s          real    9m43.228s
        user    5m42.988s           user    4m40.692s
        sys     3m56.636s           sys     2m19.860s

eglibc     RPM                          IPK
        real    32m19.984s          real    23m52.124s
        user    15m32.732s          user    20m48.214s
        sys     17m28.087s          sys     9m3.936s

Bottom line - it seems to take 20-30% longer to package via RPM.

I know there are reasons and tradeoffs for different packaging
methods, but 30% extra?

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Thomas                 |  Consulting for the
MLB Associates              |    Embedded world
------------------------------------------------------------


             reply	other threads:[~2011-05-19 14:05 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-05-19 14:05 Gary Thomas [this message]
2011-05-19 14:17 ` RPM vs IPK Mark Hatle
2011-05-19 14:26   ` Gary Thomas
2011-05-19 15:28     ` Stewart, David C
2011-05-19 15:40       ` Gary Thomas
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2011-03-21  1:58 Gary Thomas
2011-03-21 11:57 ` Richard Purdie
2011-03-21 14:02   ` Gary Thomas
2011-03-21 14:42     ` Richard Purdie
2011-03-21 16:33       ` Mark Hatle
2011-03-22  0:20     ` Khem Raj
2010-10-29 21:33 Gary Thomas
2010-10-29 21:39 ` Gary Thomas
2010-10-30  6:17   ` Richard Purdie

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4DD5239A.30404@mlbassoc.com \
    --to=gary@mlbassoc.com \
    --cc=poky@yoctoproject.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.