From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtprelay-b22.telenor.se ([195.54.99.213]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RGA0T-00059g-BC for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 15:47:01 +0200 Received: from iph2.telenor.se (iph2.telenor.se [195.54.127.133]) by smtprelay-b22.telenor.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1487E9DB9 for ; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 15:41:11 +0200 (CEST) X-SENDER-IP: [83.227.57.13] X-LISTENER: [smtp.bredband.net] X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AtkvANWBnU5T4zkNPGdsb2JhbAAMOIk8kEWOfAEBAQE3giABAQEBAgE4UQshGgsPAjIUEwYCAQGHfLcniBsEk32RWA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.69,365,1315173600"; d="scan'208";a="496726775" Received: from c-0d39e353.011-39-73746f12.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se (HELO [10.175.196.249]) ([83.227.57.13]) by iph2.telenor.se with ESMTP; 18 Oct 2011 15:41:00 +0200 Message-ID: <4E9D81EB.50702@telia.com> Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 15:40:59 +0200 From: Ulf Samuelsson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org References: <4E9C93AB.7090705@telia.com> <20111018062814.GA3751@ad.chargestorm.se> <4E9D6B7C.5000404@telia.com> <20111018121936.GA23902@ad.chargestorm.se> In-Reply-To: <20111018121936.GA23902@ad.chargestorm.se> Subject: Re: Performance measurement: Building openembedded-core with and without overclocking on C-i7 2600K 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: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 13:47:01 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 2011-10-18 14:19, Anders Darander skrev: > * Ulf Samuelsson [111018 14:06]: >> 2011-10-18 08:28, Anders Darander skrev: >>> * Ulf Samuelsson [111017 22:45]: >>>> If anyone is interested... >>> Build stats are always interesting... ;) >>>> Same machine in two different configurations. >>>> .........................................................#1...........................#2 >>>> P8Z68V Pro >>>> Core-i7 2600K @ 3.4 GHz..................4.4 GHz >>>> 8 GB @ ...........................................1333 >>>> MHz...............1640 MHz >>>> 1TB WD Black 7200 RPM >>>> Ubuntu 11-10 >>>> Almost all source code already in source directory >>> This would severely restrict the usefulness of the comparison. I'd guess >>> that this means that in one case the source will be downloaded, while >>> it'll already be downloaded in the second test. Could you redo the >>> statistics with all sources downloaded? >> I had already built it once before running the first test then updated >> and I think one additional package was downloaded over a 100 MBps line >> so it affects a little, but not too much. > Ok, just curious. Not least as you had one image fail in the first > configuration, which you attributed to a failed download. That remark > made me wonder... OK, To be 100% correct: I built meta-toolchain first so all packages for that build should be there. This is much longer than anything else, so this is a good comparision. Then the build #1 was started and measruements was taken. This failed for core-image-sato due to one missing package, which After build #1 was completed, I downloaded the missing package and started build #2. > > Cheers, > Anders > >> I think the conclusion: >> Increasing the CPU speed by 30% and the memory frequency by 20% >> gives 10-15% faster build time is OK. >>>> Building meta-toolchain is 13% faster with overclocking. >>> Was the overclocking test run after the non-overclocking? > -- Best Regards Ulf Samuelsson