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 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FizYh-0000Ht-U3 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 24 May 2006 20:02:20 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id k4OJxLUb023734; Wed, 24 May 2006 19:59:21 GMT Received: from smtp.cs.nyu.edu (SMTP.CS.NYU.EDU [128.122.140.230]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k4OJnETd021270 for ; Wed, 24 May 2006 19:49:14 GMT Received: from localhost.localdomain (ool-4578dd70.dyn.optonline.net [69.120.221.112]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.cs.nyu.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k4OJnDSF003444 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 24 May 2006 15:49:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: by localhost.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1502) id 6EC93E86; Wed, 24 May 2006 15:49:08 -0400 (EDT) To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] content of /usr/portage/distfile References: <20060524142643.5710.qmail@web27406.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <169ffc030605240752s39bfb543r9988c1d1d4e9c267@mail.gmail.com> <4474C785.3040203@gmail.com> From: Allan Gottlieb Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 15:49:08 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4474C785.3040203@gmail.com> (sohalt@gmail.com's message of "Wed, 24 May 2006 20:52:21 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Archives-Salt: 0e81e05f-b2b5-42dd-b22d-70326110ea50 X-Archives-Hash: e41135f82ce915e440001d40a48be002 At Wed, 24 May 2006 20:52:21 +0000 Alex wrote: > Hi, > > znx wrote: >> http://gentoo-wiki.com/TIP_Free_up_disk_space_in_Gentoo > > > Using CFLAGS="-Os" or CFLAGS="-O2" is much more effective on > > a desktop system and can shave off more than 30% of the size. This is > > because larger binaries (like the HUGE ones produced by -O3) > > take longer to load, and occupy more RAM. > > Is that always true? I mean, I'm not loading and unloading > applications the whole time. Additionally I've enough RAM for all > applications I use and so I can't imagine that (on my computer with my > use) applications, which are slower and smaller, can be faster than > applications which are bigger and faster. Often the bigger problem with large binaries is that their working sets exceeds the sizes of the L1 and (possibly) L2 caches. So, you may well be right that your gigabytes of RAM greatly reduce disk access to load and demand page applications, you may still get a slowdown due to cache misses. Central memory, which is the fast & small storage when considering demand paging, is the large but slow storage when considering caching. allan -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list