From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtprelay-h22.telenor.se ([195.54.99.197]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RI61X-0005UR-26 for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 23:56:07 +0200 Received: from iph3.telenor.se (iph3.telenor.se [195.54.127.134]) by smtprelay-h22.telenor.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D2C4C2DB for ; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 23:50:07 +0200 (CEST) X-SENDER-IP: [83.227.59.253] X-LISTENER: [smtp.bredband.net] X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhEZAGqLpE5T4zv9PGdsb2JhbAAMN6kqAQEBATeCIAEBAQEDAQEBawoRCyEWBAsJAwIBAgEVARsUEwYCAQGIBLQ+iEAEkW6CG5Fd X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.69,395,1315173600"; d="scan'208,217";a="135312910" Received: from c-fd3be353.011-39-73746f12.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se (HELO [10.175.196.249]) ([83.227.59.253]) by iph3.telenor.se with ESMTP; 23 Oct 2011 23:50:06 +0200 Message-ID: <4EA48C0E.6070700@telia.com> Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 23:50:06 +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> <4E9CA882.7080107@gmail.com> <4E9D16AD.7040403@telia.com> <201110232150.53072.roman@khimov.ru> In-Reply-To: <201110232150.53072.roman@khimov.ru> X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.11 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: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 21:56:07 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 2011-10-23 19:50, Roman Khimov skrev: > ? ????????? ?? 18 ??????? 2011 10:03:25 ????? Ulf Samuelsson ???????: >> Also what happens if it it built on a fast SSD, or even a RAMdisk? > Our main build server has two Xeons X5670 with 96 GB of RAM. It's runni= ng 24=D77 > cyclicly doing clean isolated builds of all our OE projects (currently = five). > "Isolated" means that the the actual build is done inside a container (= LXC) > with no network available at all, that is a requirement for all our bui= lds, to > be able to take one tarball of sources, one tarball of OE tree and buil= d the > project somewhere in a nuclear bunker. > > The system is configured in such way that container is located on tmpfs= (with > size of 50 GB). The most complex build takes about hour and a half on t= his > system occupying about 45 GB of space in a ramdisk. > > So today I tried to get some RAM vs. Linux cache statistics and switche= d this > mount point over to newly created 60 GB LVM partition with ext4 on RAID= 0 array > consisting of two SAS 15K drives. > > The system made builds for three projects is this configuration and I s= ee no > difference at all, usual 1-2 minutes deviation. Granted, the system has= quite > powerful disks (RAID array gives about 380 MB/sec on hdparm) and things= might > be a little different on plain SATA drives, but frankly I'd expected to= see > the difference anyway since there are lots of small files involved in a= build. > > Maybe I should try to further degrade the disk system by creating some > encrypted volume inside LVM, but still from what I see Linux caching an= d > buffering works good enough, just give it as much RAM as you can. > > But then also what you'll get from RAM or disk or even CPU upgrade depe= nds on > what type of build you have. Upgrading developers build servers from pa= ir of > 4-core Opterons (don't remember exact model) with 8 GB of RAM to pair o= f Xeons > E5620 with 24 GB of RAM with comparable disks gave about 20-30% of buil= d time > reduction for one project and 50% for another. But that builds are not > isolated and use icecc cluster with all build servers available to the > cluster, maybe that helps also in our situation. > Thanks, I tried installing 32 bit Ubuntu 11.10 on a HDD and got results, which are very close to the results of 64 bit ubuntu 11.10, but when I tr= ied hdparm the 32 bit system had 50 MB/s and the 64 bit system had 100-110 MB/s so they are not comparable. Also tried putting tmp/sysroots on a 3 GB tmpfs, and that only made the build a couple of minutes faster on a 1 hour build. > > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-devel mailing list > Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel --=20 Best Regards Ulf Samuelsson