Re: ccache for the autobuilders?
On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 03:48:49AM +0200, Paul Russell wrote:
> On Monday 01 April 2002 18:23, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> > Martin Schulze <email@example.com> cum veritate scripsit:
> > > The same package: almost never
> > > the same file: often, with every new compile.
> > >
> > > Just take into account that a package contains 50 .c files that need
> > > to be compiled. An updated package often only changes packaging or
> > > 10% of .c files, leaving 45 remaining the same. These 45 files would
> > > benefit of ccache.
> > I'm pretty doubtful if ccache is able to cache so much
> > data. We have 5000 source packages.
> Looking at my testing PPC box with grep-available, we have only about
> 8GB total Installed-Size. So I would expect a ccache of 1GB (the default) to
> be a net gain, given that not all packages are built with the same
> regularity. 10GB should definitely do it, well within ccache's capability.
glibc packages total installed size is only a few dozen megs. However,
the source builds takes up about 600megs. XFree86, about 1.6gigs.
There's no way to sanely cache our builds.
Debian - http://www.debian.org/
Linux 1394 - http://linux1394.sourceforge.net/
Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com