Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
How much time does it take to compile glibc,gcc,kernel?
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Gentoo Chat
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
eccerr0r
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 01 Jul 2004
Posts: 4104
Location: USA

PostPosted: Sun Apr 27, 2014 11:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I had been running Gnome2 on my Atom N270 but have switched to xfce in light of gnome2 support drop. It takes forever for it to do updates...

I need to get more 32-bit capable distcc machines up and running...
_________________
Intel Core i7 2700K@ 4.1GHz/HD3000 graphics/8GB DDR3/180GB SSD
What am I supposed to be advocating?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Simba7
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Jan 2007
Posts: 685
Location: Billings, MT, USA

PostPosted: Mon May 19, 2014 2:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

eccerr0r wrote:
Ouch... Atom... (I run Gentoo on one too...)

Oh, you think an Atom is bad? Try doing a ground-up install on a Pentium II. I'm still utilizing a few of these for remote servers/routers.

They work good, and are rather solid. A little slow, but they can route at least 100mbps of traffic.. which is fine for DSL/Cable connections.
_________________
Router(Nokia IP390,2GB RAM,8GB SSD,4xGE/4xFE ports,OpenBSD) | MyDT(Xeon X3470@3.45GHz,16GB RAM,2TB+2TB+3x1.5TB HDDs,GFGTX560Ti,LG BD-RE,Win10TP)
MyLT(Asus G53SX,32GB RAM,2x2TB HDDs,BD-RE,Intel 6230,Win7) | Wife(PnmIIX6@2.9GHz,8GB RAM,1TB HDD,DVDRW,Win7)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eccerr0r
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 01 Jul 2004
Posts: 4104
Location: USA

PostPosted: Mon May 19, 2014 10:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Simba7 wrote:
Oh, you think an Atom is bad? Try doing a ground-up install on a Pentium II. I'm still utilizing a few of these for remote servers/routers.

If you really want slow, I still have a Geode GX1 and running an IRC bot on it. All P2's run circles around this thing. But at least it does not have a GUI compile and work with. (My PPro at 200MHz is also significantly faster than the GX1, though having 256MB RAM on the GX1 and I don't have 128MB for the PPro, the comparison is a bit more difficult.)

But realistically the Atom is pretty darn slow. The ARM, being its main competitor, seems even worse...
_________________
Intel Core i7 2700K@ 4.1GHz/HD3000 graphics/8GB DDR3/180GB SSD
What am I supposed to be advocating?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sundialsvc4
Guru
Guru


Joined: 10 Nov 2005
Posts: 436

PostPosted: Mon Jun 02, 2014 4:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Both "glibc" and "gcc" are, really, unfair comparisons, because both of these systems have to jump through some pretty-spectacular hoops in order to be certain that they can "build themselves successfully, to a known final-state, given a completely-unknown environment."

In order to accomplish this spectacular feat, these systems go through many additional "bootstrapping" steps that other packages do not need to concern themselves with.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anon-E-moose
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 2501
Location: Dallas area

PostPosted: Mon Jun 02, 2014 6:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sundialsvc4 wrote:
Both "glibc" and "gcc" are, really, unfair comparisons, because both of these systems have to jump through some pretty-spectacular hoops in order to be certain that they can "build themselves successfully, to a known final-state, given a completely-unknown environment."


But that's just it, everyone that uses them has to jump through the same hoops as you put it. So the comparisons are valid, IMO.

No one has said, "well gtk+ compiles this fast so your glibc times suck"
_________________
Asus m5a99fx, FX 8320 - amd64-multilib, 3.15.9-zen, glibc-2.17, gcc-4.7.3-r1, eudev
xorg-server-1.16, openbox w/lxpanel, nouveau, oss4(2010)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
freifunk_connewitz
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 08 Feb 2006
Posts: 120

PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 1:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hiya
about kernel build times:
right now, I have to rebuild the kernel quite often because I have to test hardware configurations. IIRC the 'make' command in the past somehow sorted out for itself if kernel and module stuff has already been built during the last build process in the same source directory - and only builds stuff that has been changed in the .config, meanwhile.
but apparently, in my case, with every re-compile 'make' builds *everything* again. that's why, I'm suffering kernel build times of >3h on an AMD E1-2500 @1400MHz.
did I miss something in the process? how can I tell make to re-use everything that has been compiled before und hasnt changed config-wise?
thanks for answers, even if this is just a chat.
cheers,
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mv
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 4348

PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 2:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

freifunk_connewitz wrote:
the 'make' command in the past somehow sorted out for itself if kernel and module stuff has already been built during the last build process

Compilation can only be omitted if no .h-file needed to generate the .o-file changes. Usually, changes in .config involve changing of some .h-files, and some of these are included in almost every .o-file: Also inside the kernel the number of internal dependencies has increased, dramatically.
If you use a hardened kernel and ccache, things are even more dramatic, since once the compiler plugin is rebuilt, all ccache information becomes invalid, and so exactly everything has to be recompiled (although it is not necessary, but ccache has not way to prove this); the analogous assertion holds for "make".
So, short answer to your question: There is nothing you can do about it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
freifunk_connewitz
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 08 Feb 2006
Posts: 120

PostPosted: Sun Jun 08, 2014 2:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mv,
thanks for explaining. as I realized after some tries, it really depends on what configuration you change. if it's just a device driver, the compiler really almost only builds the driver, if it's something deep like paravirtualization, it pretty much has to rebuild everything.
thanks again,
still loving gentoo as much as you great people here at the forums!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
amulet_linux
n00b
n00b


Joined: 26 Apr 2014
Posts: 39
Location: Aincrad

PostPosted: Sun Jun 08, 2014 7:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

amulet_linux wrote:
krinn wrote:
amulet_linux wrote:
glib
merge time: 9 minutes and 35 seconds.

I don't want ruin your fun but add a "c" at end of glib and you might not like the timing result ;)


2 hours, 19 minutes and 49 seconds.

hahaha, that's true


sys-libs/glibc

* sys-libs/glibc

Tue May 27 21:27:20 2014 >>> sys-libs/glibc-2.17
merge time: 8 minutes and 17 seconds.

Sun Jun 8 14:21:40 2014 >>> sys-libs/glibc-2.17
merge time: 6 minutes and 54 seconds.

My new computer's merge time. It is very close to my wrong one.
intel core i7
_________________
We're fighting for our own wishes.
It's normal not to get noticed or remembered.
-Homura Akemi
_________________
Linux user #550818
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Gentoo Chat All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum