Re: ccache for the autobuilders?
On Tue, 2 Apr 2002 10:17, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-04-01 at 23:17, Ben Collins wrote:
> > > Looking at my testing PPC box with grep-available, we have only about
> > > 8GB total Installed-Size.
> > glibc packages total installed size is only a few dozen megs. However,
> > the source builds takes up about 600megs. XFree86, about 1.6gigs.
> glibc's build requirements sound like about 20-30 times installed size,
> then. Assuming this holds, and trusting the 8GB figure, gives
> That's all of three 100GB IDE disks running in RAID 0. Four disks if for
> some reason you want redundancy on your cache.
> Surely no more than $1000, even if you buy from expensive vendors. At
> least if it fits in the machine's case. You could do it for $500. Is it
> worth it? Not sure. Maybe on real slow archs, like 68K.
So we firstly need to find a real slow arch which also supports 4 new large
IDE disks (remember that machines 3 years old tend not to have good support
for >32G drives).
Then this same arch needs to be slow enough at CPU that it needs a compiler
cache, while being fast enough at doing disk IO and running the file system
to be able to offer a performance gain.
Then of course there's the issue of how many M68K machines you could buy for
$1K. Maybe it would be better and easier to just buy a number of machines
and divide the load?
If you send email to me or to a mailing list that I use which has >4 lines
of legalistic junk at the end then you are specifically authorizing me to do
whatever I wish with the message and all other messages from your domain, by
posting the message you agree that your long legalistic sig is void.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org