From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21695 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2004 23:29:04 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 10 Jul 2004 23:29:04 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BjRHC-0001yX-FE for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 23:29:02 +0000 Received: (qmail 6795 invoked by uid 89); 10 Jul 2004 23:29:02 +0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 7735 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2004 23:29:01 +0000 From: Chris Gianelloni To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <200407110108.21021.dma147@mieland-programming.de> References: <200407102138.12364.dma147@mieland-programming.de> <200407110039.03625.dma147@mieland-programming.de> <20040710234423.326fcefe@snowdrop.home> <200407110108.21021.dma147@mieland-programming.de> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1089502141.9109.3.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 19:29:01 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Some important questions to the officals of www.gentoo.org X-Archives-Salt: 2a49317e-2615-4c9f-a3c2-e20d7ea1fe24 X-Archives-Hash: 08427acb4f57da6b3b3d9061c280c119 On Sat, 2004-07-10 at 19:08, Alexander Mieland wrote: > ACK. > it's surely in our mind to provide as much information as we can. I'm also > planning on a second dedicated machine, which has a Pentium 4 with > HT-technology to provide the SMP-part of the merge-times. In the future, > if all is running and the response of the users is good enough, we hope > that we can also provide the merge-times for other architectures than > x86. Trust me when I tell you that a P4 w/ HT is *nowhere* near the speed of true SMP. You're better off going with your arbitrary calculations below. While I do think this information is useful, I still think the best method is to come up with a new number, rather than time. A good one (stolen from LFS) is the BU or Bash Unit. The time it takes to compile bash is always 1BU. SMP is ignored, since it skews the results. So would distcc... The idea is not to even try to give the exact time for emerging things for everybody, but rather to have a strong baseline "average" that hits most people. > By the way, as long as we dont have a second machine with smp-support, it > should be possibly to get reasonably accurate results if we multiply the > number of cpus and then divide through a factor like 1.2. You can test > it, it should be reasonably accurate. > > But as I said, we are planning on a second machine with smp and also on > merge-time information for other architectures. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering QA Manager/Games Developer Gentoo Linux Is your power animal a pengiun? -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list