Performance comparison, ULE vs 4BSD and AMD64 vs i386

Jem Matzan jem at
Tue Feb 24 14:06:17 PST 2004

Brooks Davis wrote:

>On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 04:37:44PM -0500, Jem Matzan wrote:
>>I thought that ULE was supposed to offer superior performance -- or at
>>least, that's the word around the Internet -- but I have yet to discover
>>that through my experience. Can anyone offer any possible explanation
>>for ULE performing worse than 4BSD?
>Have you contacted the author of ULE?  He is generally intrested in
>reports to this effect and has been able to fix reproducable problems in
>the past.
I'll write to the author right now. But I do want to get this to press 
sometime soon.

>>How about AMD64 being slower than i386 on the same hardware? By
>>slower, I mean a buildworld -j4 took about 400 seconds longer in AMD64
>You can't usefully compare compile times when you are compiling for
>a different instructions set.  The work involved is rairly the same
>so the results are meaning less.  If you could factor out the cost of
>building the native bootstrap tools since that isn't the same job on
>each machine, the speed of a cross buildworld would be an intresting
>test.  For comparing i386 and amd64, I'd probably build an alpha or
>sparc64 world so the target would be entierly different.
>-- Brooks
I figured that the world would be the same for both AMD64 and i386. That 
really sucks that all of this data and all of that time has been more or 
less wasted on doing buildworld time benchmarks. As far as I know it 
isn't possible to do a crossbuild (I've tried before, and I read on the 
list several weeks ago that it won't work). Do you have any suggestions 
for measuring compile times?


More information about the freebsd-amd64 mailing list