From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10059 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2004 23:41:50 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 10 Jul 2004 23:41:50 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BjRTY-0002qQ-Sw for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 23:41:48 +0000 Received: (qmail 11093 invoked by uid 89); 10 Jul 2004 23:41:48 +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 30180 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2004 23:41:48 +0000 From: Alexander Mieland Reply-To: dma147@mieland-programming.de Organization: APP - Another PHP Program To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 01:41:44 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 References: <200407102138.12364.dma147@mieland-programming.de> <200407110108.21021.dma147@mieland-programming.de> <1089502141.9109.3.camel@localhost> In-Reply-To: <1089502141.9109.3.camel@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <200407110141.44308.dma147@mieland-programming.de> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Some important questions to the officals of www.gentoo.org X-Archives-Salt: a6421329-6867-42fd-9b40-dbc85a55e684 X-Archives-Hash: 81355cfe6a6dafe49dad04d62fe8c972 =2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Am Sonntag, 11. Juli 2004 01:29 schrieb Chris Gianelloni: > 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. sorry, I'll answer tomorrow. It's now 01:40am. :) But that's a fantastic idea. why isn't it mine? *g* I've also used lfs, a few years ago. > > 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. =2D --=20 Alexander Mieland System: Gentoo 2004.1, 2.6.7 SMP APP - Another PHP Program Registered Linux-User #249600 http://www.php-programs.de http://counter.li.org http://www.mieland-programming.de s/Alexander Mieland/dma147 =2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFA8H64kxKnzj3lcIERAui6AJ9ecN6EJr8Uk+qjY5xpnHAJOnS2igCfav9w UvZdBjHfpA+Tnfpe661Nr2Q=3D =3Dc23c =2D----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list