Performance comparison, ULE vs 4BSD and AMD64 vs i386
jem at thejemreport.com
Tue Feb 24 14:51:35 PST 2004
John Baldwin wrote:
>On Tuesday 24 February 2004 05:04 pm, Jem Matzan wrote:
>>Brooks Davis wrote:
>>>On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 04:37:44PM -0500, Jem Matzan wrote:
>>>>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.
>>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?
>You can do a crossbuild easy, just do:
>make TARGET_ARCH=amd64 buildworld
>or subsitute whatever arch for amd64.
Ah -- I wasn't considering all of the possibilities. It was the AMD64
form i386 crossbuild that wasn't working for me (while actually trying
to turn a working i386 system into an AMD64 build -- it was the
installworld that failed and broke everything to hell. Now I remember).
So instead I'll build a SPARC or ALPHA world on both AMD64 and i386. Of
course this means another 18 hours of testing... unless I can build the
i386 world with AMD64, in which case I only have half of everything to
More information about the freebsd-amd64