Re: Performance of a binaries vs source compliation!
hi ya
On 5 Jul 2003, Kevin Mark wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-07-05 at 18:43, Rthoreau wrote:
> > I have been doing some research lately about the performance difference
> > between binary packages, and those compiled from source. From what I have
> > learned so far their really is not a good tool to verify the difference.
speed increase vs "additional features" vs bugs-with-holes fixes
- no single tool will tell you the "difference"
> <snip>
> For 99% of cases its not worth it.
yup.. usually not worth the time or $$$ to for performance increase
but definitely worth the time ( few minutes extra ) for kernel and gcc
fixes/patches and security paranoia issues
getting the next faster cpu or added the extra memory or faster disks will
probably get you 5% - 10% performance increase for $25-$50 difference in
hardware
> Most packages are compiled for i386
> and thus are not optimized for every new chip. You can compile packages
you want to compile from sources when:
a) there is no *.bin already compiled for you
b) you want to add features that is not in the pre-compiled versions
c) you want to use a cleaner gcc vs generic gcc w/ buffer overflow
checking
d) you want to optimize and get the last .00001% of performance out of the
system
e) you want to minimize the space needed for each binary
f) you like to fiddle and twiddle
...
c ya
alvin
Reply to: