From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1H6mGC-0006Ax-FC for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:13:49 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id l0GBC0XF024673; Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:12:00 GMT Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l0GBBxOT014697 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:11:59 GMT Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1H6mEK-00054f-Hd for gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 16 Jan 2007 12:11:52 +0100 Received: from ip68-231-13-122.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.231.13.122]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2007 12:11:52 +0100 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-231-13-122.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2007 12:11:52 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-amd64] Re: MAKEOPTS values for Athlon 64 X2 Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:11:42 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <45AB1451.9010005@paulscrap.com> <45ABA032.4070601@digital-trauma.de> <45AC0F0A.5050408@digital-trauma.de> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-231-13-122.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: pan 0.120 (Plate of Shrimp) Sender: news Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by robin.gentoo.org id l0GBC0YC024673 X-Archives-Salt: b76e40ef-dd3b-4c2f-8b90-600849d9db57 X-Archives-Hash: 5080802d6b52b39081123333ad50e1db Thomas R=C3=B6sner posted 45AC0F0A.5050408@digital-trauma.de, excerpted below, on Tue, 16 Jan 2007 00:32:26 +0100: > Duncan wrote: >> As for disk access, the average guy with a single hard drive will >> certainly find that the bottleneck in an unlimited jobs scenario such = as >> the above. I'm running a four disk SATA based RAID array, RAID-6 (so >> two-way-striped, with two-way recovery as well) on my main system, >=20 > Uhm, if you'd use RAID-1-1, you wouldn't have to calculate those > checksums... True, but computing checksums is relatively trivial compared to the I/O overhead, and reading (which doesn't need checksums unless the RAID array is operating in degraded mode) would be half-speed relative to= a 4-disk RAID-6 (so two-way data striped). Given the trivial checksumming, Writing would be comparable to a three-disk RAID-1, and is slower than a two-disk RAID-1, as for every data stripe there's two parity stripes to update, but there's not a lot of data actually written anyway during emerges, since all the work is done on tmpfs and only the final write is to the disk. When compiling the kernel, I'm working directly on disk but that mount is a four-way striped RAID-0, so I get its speed and no checksumming overhead there. (/boot is RAID-1 so GRUB can read it, so when the kernel is actually installed, it's written to 4-way RAID-1, but that's only one writing the completed kernel, so no big deal there.) If I was running less than four disks, the choice would be a bit tougher, between a 3-disk RAID-5 with two-way striped read speed but two-way-mirrored (plus checksumming) write speed, while losing the ability to recover from a two-drive failure, a 3-disk RAID-1, keeping the two-drive recovery but at a severe cost in speed, or a 2-disk RAID-1/mirrored. In that instance I expect the 2-disk RAID-1/mirrored would win as it would be too difficult to justify either of the 3-disk options. > Btw, may I come to your place when UT2007 is out? ;-) As a gamer, you'd probably not appreciate my choice of video card -- an older but freedomware driver Radeon 9250. I won't do proprietaryware/slaveryware. Luckily I'm not much of a gamer, but the rest of the hardware specs are complimented by dual 400x300 mm (21" diag) monitors, normally running @ 1600x1200 stacked for 1600x2400. I used to run 2048x1536 stacked for 2048x3072, but while it worked, text was blurry as that was below the monitors' native pixel pitch (set for 1600x1200), and the 85 Hz refresh doesn't hurt (I was limited to 60 Hz with the higher resolution, acceptable with the light text on dark backgrounds I prefer, but not ideal, or even tolerable with dark text on light backgrouns) either, so I finally caved in and downgraded my resolution. --=20 Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman --=20 gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list