Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
Extremely fast compile times with AMD FX 8320
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

 
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Gentoo Chat
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
PseudoKrazy
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 21 Nov 2003
Posts: 115
Location: USA/NJ

PostPosted: Mon Jul 22, 2013 2:16 am    Post subject: Extremely fast compile times with AMD FX 8320 Reply with quote

I left Gentoo and linux in general a long time ago so that I could play computer games without the headaches of wine and such. The recent Steam for Linux stuff that valve is doing has gotten me interested again, and so back to Gentoo I come. It was the 'cool distro' to use back when I was heavily into the linux thing, and pretty much the only one that I used, so I figured why not use that. It broke a lot and took forever to install, but hey, I was the cool kid.

And all I can say is, Holy smokes blazing fast compile times!!! I remember setting up X to compile overnight so that I could configure it the next morning! What once took hours now takes minutes! MINUTES! As a matter of fact, anything and everything that once took hours to compile now is a matter of mere minutes! I have -j9 set in my make.conf and am running an AMD FX 8320. This processor alone has taken the one fatal flaw of Gentoo (in my opinion), compile times, and completely made it a moot point. It seems that the hardware has finally caught up to Gentoo's potential.

Just wanted to share my enthusiasm and excitement :-). What luck!
_________________
PseudoKrazy: Because I am...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eccerr0r
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 01 Jul 2004
Posts: 4060
Location: USA

PostPosted: Mon Jul 22, 2013 3:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't think it's a fault per se, but it's a penalty for customization.

Nevertheless yes these quad core machines as well as distcc have made builds very fast. And SSDs/portagetmp-on-tmpfs.

My Core2Quad is not bad at all, but yes my i7 with SSD blows it out of the water. Firefox only takes 10 minutes or, even with PGO.

Though I still remember the time my overclocked dual celeron 300 (2x450MHz) took less than 2 minutes to compile its kernel in its day. The i7 can just about do it with modern kernels however, but it just doesn't seem as impressive...
_________________
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
LoTeK
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 26 Jul 2012
Posts: 270

PostPosted: Mon Jul 22, 2013 6:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Firefox only takes 10 minutes or, even with PGO.

seriously? on my FX-4170 it takes an hour.

Quote:
I have -j9 set in my make.conf and am running an AMD FX 8320.

ah, I knew I should have bought the octacore :)

I thought the 4170 is better for me because of the higher frequency (I had to decide between FX-4170 and the 8100 series), but I was wrong. When I switch to "performance mode" in my UEFI-BIOS (with mouse 8O ) the system crashes after 30 min compiling...

today the "compile pain" has switched to embedded devices, micro controller etc.
_________________
"I want to see gamma rays! I want to hear X-rays! Do you see the absurdity of what I am? I can't even express these things properly because I have to conceptualize complex ideas in this stupid limiting spoken language!"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eccerr0r
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 01 Jul 2004
Posts: 4060
Location: USA

PostPosted: Mon Jul 22, 2013 7:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hmm... I think I was lying about 10 minutes (system: Intel Core i7 2700K o/c 4.1GHz, *distcc* make -j8) :

1374015346: >>> emerge (43 of 43) www-client/firefox-17.0.7 to /
1374015347: === (43 of 43) Compiling/Merging (www-client/firefox-17.0.7::/usr/portage/www-client/firefox/firefox-17.0.7.ebuild)
1374015948: ::: completed emerge (43 of 43) www-client/firefox-17.0.7 to /

USE: +alsa +dbus +gstreamer +jit +libnotify +minimal +startup-notification -system-sqlite -wifi

The other machine that may or may not have been helping out on build (because this thing has 8 threads, it probably didn't send much over to the Core2 Duo machine to build.)

Some of the other times I built firefox it took 2000 seconds to build so nowhere near 10 mins. I need to make a more systematic benchmark... But there were a few that were around the 600 second mark...

But yes, ugh, I hate compiling for AVR (embedded, not a general purpose computer)/other cross compiling... Mostly because of having to copy over before testing. Usually that's a pain...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PseudoKrazy
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 21 Nov 2003
Posts: 115
Location: USA/NJ

PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 10:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

eccerr0r, how are you doing your benchmark as of now?
_________________
PseudoKrazy: Because I am...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eccerr0r
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 01 Jul 2004
Posts: 4060
Location: USA

PostPosted: Wed Jul 24, 2013 12:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Those numbers are the timestamps in /var/log/emerge.log ... but it's not that as the problem, it's more of being methodological (i.e. set conditions, making sure no background tasks, disable distcc, etc.) than the actual timing measurement...
_________________
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
jonnevers
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 02 Jan 2003
Posts: 1593
Location: Gentoo64 land

PostPosted: Wed Jul 24, 2013 1:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I average around 22 minutes to compile firefox with my 1090t 6-core AMD.

It was about 12 minutes until last October... which i believe is when xulrunner got merged into the main firefox build. effectively doubling the compile time.

evolution was around 25 minutes but I've recently dumped gnome in favor of dwm ( which is about 8 seconds ).

kernel compile is typically 1 minute and 30 seconds wall clock time
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eccerr0r
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 01 Jul 2004
Posts: 4060
Location: USA

PostPosted: Wed Jul 24, 2013 2:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hmm... My last firefox-17.0.7 build on my core2quad (9550S, slightly overclocked, SW RAID5 HDD, 4GB RAM) took 7785-6548=1237 seconds = about 21 minutes.

I do have to admit that my core2quad and i7 have been stealing each other's cpu cycles due to a mis-configured distcc... so who knows which is correct :D
_________________
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
djdunn
l33t
l33t


Joined: 26 Dec 2004
Posts: 709
Location: Arrakis

PostPosted: Wed Jul 24, 2013 4:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

compiling the kernel is a terrible benchmark :p
_________________
A process cannot be understood by stopping it. Understanding must move with the flow of the process, must join it and flow with it.

-The First Law of Mentat
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eccerr0r
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 01 Jul 2004
Posts: 4060
Location: USA

PostPosted: Wed Jul 24, 2013 12:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

djdunn wrote:
compiling the kernel is a terrible benchmark :p

Now compiling Firefox... with its gut wrenching link phase...
_________________
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
nlsa8z6zoz7lyih3ap
Guru
Guru


Joined: 25 Sep 2007
Posts: 332
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Fri Jul 26, 2013 5:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I have -j9 set in my make.conf and am running an AMD FX 8320


I also have an 8 core amd chip (FX 8350)


I include the following in my /etc/make.conf, and am extremely pleased with the "emerge" times:

Code:
MAKEOPTS="-j9 -l16"
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--jobs=8  --load-average=16  --keep-going=y  --with-bdeps=y --complete-graph"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vaxbrat
l33t
l33t


Joined: 05 Oct 2005
Posts: 618
Location: DC Burbs

PostPosted: Fri Jul 26, 2013 6:20 pm    Post subject: my last two builds have been FX 8350 piledrivers Reply with quote

You guys might want to set -march=native in your flags since gcc now knows about family 15 and the new avx instructions. It breaks my heart that I can't go into the local Microcenter and get ECC memory off of the shelf just because Intel forces people into buying price gouging Xeons and server mobo's if they want that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nlsa8z6zoz7lyih3ap
Guru
Guru


Joined: 25 Sep 2007
Posts: 332
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Fri Jul 26, 2013 6:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
You guys might want to set -march=native in your flags since gcc now knows about family 15

For my FX-8350 this requires gcc-4.7.x (Which 'tho in ~amd64) runs flawlessly on my machine.

I also use (with great success) the kernel patch from https://github.com/graysky2/kernel_gcc_patch
which supports these CPU's in the kernel configuration.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PseudoKrazy
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 21 Nov 2003
Posts: 115
Location: USA/NJ

PostPosted: Fri Jul 26, 2013 11:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

what does the -l16 do in makeopts?
_________________
PseudoKrazy: Because I am...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nlsa8z6zoz7lyih3ap
Guru
Guru


Joined: 25 Sep 2007
Posts: 332
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Sat Jul 27, 2013 12:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
what does the -l16 do in makeopts


From http://preney.ca/paul/archives/341 I quote:

Quote:
the -l prevents any new parallel job starting unless the load is below the amount specified.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PseudoKrazy
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 21 Nov 2003
Posts: 115
Location: USA/NJ

PostPosted: Sat Jul 27, 2013 12:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Neato. I'll give it a try, but I haven't noticed any input lag without -l set. Is it there purely to prevent a diminishing returns scenario, where it becomes worthless to start new jobs without first finishing the ones currently going?
_________________
PseudoKrazy: Because I am...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eccerr0r
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 01 Jul 2004
Posts: 4060
Location: USA

PostPosted: Sat Jul 27, 2013 12:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You probably don't need -l set unless you're trying to run more stuff on the machine (say, you're running some multithreaded number crunching app or another emerge or something), just to make sure your load average doesn't go through the roof.
_________________
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
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Gentoo Chat All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
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