From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16624 invoked from network); 9 Sep 2004 07:54:57 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 9 Sep 2004 07:54:57 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1C5Jlh-0005fr-EL for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 09 Sep 2004 07:54:57 +0000 Received: (qmail 18235 invoked by uid 89); 9 Sep 2004 07:54:56 +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 7617 invoked from network); 9 Sep 2004 07:54:56 +0000 From: Paul de Vrieze To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 09:52:51 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.7 References: <33333.10.0.0.51.1094638559.squirrel@10.0.0.51> <413F0813.5030308@cryos.net> <33543.10.0.0.51.1094653278.squirrel@10.0.0.51> In-Reply-To: <33543.10.0.0.51.1094653278.squirrel@10.0.0.51> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200409090952.51315.pauldv@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Do we want optimal performance? X-Archives-Salt: 42123c34-1055-43fd-b770-1599cff54f44 X-Archives-Hash: 66d122d5267b40d92cbf94592d110516 On Wednesday 08 September 2004 16:21, Klavs Klavsen wrote: > > I do realise there wouldn't be much point in doing this > flag-optimization for every package - but I'm sure everybody could > benefit greatly from this for servers, with MySQL, PostgreSQL, apache > etc. etc. Would be nice with if this resulted in a set of optimal > CFLAGS (as fast as possible, without stability problems) and perhaps > some performance CFLAGS (with perhaps some stability problems) for > these packages (for each CPU-type) - so people know what they are > doing. Well, find out what is the way to get them as fast as possible, submit that to the upstream developers so they can overlay that upon the default cflags. Then everybody is happy, including gentoo as it does not cause us extra support or testing headaches. > It would in esssense be a record of "automated performance testing > numbers" with "unstable CFLAGS added, if not detected with automated > performance testing, then added via bugzilla. Read a bit up on complexity theory, will you. > IMHO a very good start would be with tests for the major serverpackages > (as they are the easiest to do test-suites fore - and most likely we > can already find test-suites for these) and then go from there. > To most, they won't care if bzip2 is a little slower - but they would > care, if their LAMP setup was quicker for the same buck :) Providing this will add major complexity to the packages and portage. The only thing that might help is the arc profiling stuff. The rest is at your own leisure. profiling and improving code in any case is more likely to lead to significant speed increases. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list