| 1 |
On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 2:44 AM, Stroller |
| 2 |
<stroller@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> On 17/12/2010, at 10:56pm, Peter Humphrey wrote: |
| 5 |
>> ... an Atom N270 box ... server, but it's a bit slow compared with the other boxes on the |
| 6 |
>> network. A big bit, actually - 69 minutes to compile a kernel compared |
| 7 |
>> with less than 9 minutes on this workstation. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> 9 minutes!?!? I'm flabbergasted. The machines I have around here, I consider 1 hour to |
| 10 |
> compile a kernel pretty good. Actually I'm in the process of migrating to newer hardware, |
| 11 |
> but I haven't tested kernel compilation times. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
[brag] |
| 14 |
real 1m46.250s |
| 15 |
user 11m54.140s |
| 16 |
sys 0m57.290s |
| 17 |
[/brag] |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Less than 2 minutes here ;) That is for "make -j9 all" on Core i7 920 |
| 20 |
(OC'ed to 3.5GHz) |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
To be more on topic, I've never been able to figure out distcc to the |
| 23 |
point where I feel comfortable that I've done it correctly. I have a |
| 24 |
laptop where emerging a new release of KDE takes more than 1 day, and |
| 25 |
the above mentioned workstation where it takes an hour. Followed the |
| 26 |
wiki and I could see compilation happening on the remote machine, but |
| 27 |
it was few and far between. It usually seemed like using it was slower |
| 28 |
than not using it at all. I tried to set it to just not use the local |
| 29 |
machine for anything but was never able to get that to work. (I'm not |
| 30 |
sure if it's even possible?) |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
I probably did something wrong or misunderstood some fundamental part |
| 33 |
of it, but I gave up on it long ago. |
Archives