View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Garbanzo n00b
Joined: 06 Aug 2018 Posts: 37
|
Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 5:12 pm Post subject: Long term build times |
|
|
As time goes by computers get faster and software gets bigger. Over the long run, will build times get longer or shorter? How does the time to update world for a general purpose desktop compare to 10 years ago? What might it look like 10 years from now? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Muso Veteran
Joined: 22 Oct 2002 Posts: 1052 Location: The Holy city of Honolulu
|
Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 5:17 pm Post subject: Re: Long term build times |
|
|
Garbanzo wrote: | As time goes by computers get faster and software gets bigger. Over the long run, will build times get longer or shorter? How does the time to update world for a general purpose desktop compare to 10 years ago? What might it look like 10 years from now? |
Shorter, for sure.
With 1220 packages installed, including libreoffice & firefox, an emerge -e @world takes this system about 13 hours or so. Years back, well over 24 hours would have been needed, especially considering the size of the newer browsers. _________________ "You can lead a horticulture but you can't make her think" ~ Dorothy Parker
2021 is the year of the Linux Desktop! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
toralf Developer
Joined: 01 Feb 2004 Posts: 3922 Location: Hamburg
|
Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
IMO the compile times of llvm, clang, gcc, rust,chromium et al exploded in the past 2 years. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
fedeliallalinea Administrator
Joined: 08 Mar 2003 Posts: 30887 Location: here
|
Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 5:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
toralf wrote: | IMO the compile times of llvm, clang, gcc, rust,chromium et al exploded in the past 2 years. |
Especially chromium _________________ Questions are guaranteed in life; Answers aren't. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Hu Moderator
Joined: 06 Mar 2007 Posts: 21595
|
Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Does a general purpose desktop include the inner-operating-system-masquerading-as-a-browser (modern Chrome, modern Firefox) as an integral component? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Muso Veteran
Joined: 22 Oct 2002 Posts: 1052 Location: The Holy city of Honolulu
|
Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
toralf wrote: | IMO the compile times of llvm, clang, gcc, rust,chromium et al exploded in the past 2 years. |
++
Absolutely.
fedeliallalinea wrote: | Especially chromium |
Well, with Firefox needing rust, it's also quite the compile fiend.
I haven't tried building a newer chromium since firefox went quantum. So far. firefox works perfectly for my needs. _________________ "You can lead a horticulture but you can't make her think" ~ Dorothy Parker
2021 is the year of the Linux Desktop! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ant P. Watchman
Joined: 18 Apr 2009 Posts: 6920
|
Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
toralf wrote: | IMO the compile times of llvm, clang, gcc, rust,chromium et al exploded in the past 2 years. |
It doesn't help that rust bundles *another* copy of llvm... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
eccerr0r Watchman
Joined: 01 Jul 2004 Posts: 9677 Location: almost Mile High in the USA
|
Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What circumstances?
Same hardware, same software: the baseline, won't change.
Faster hardware, same software: time goes down
Same hardware, newer software: time goes up
Faster hardware, newer software: usually same as before.
Firefox itself also is increasing in compile time, and that's not counting the rust dependency (plus there's no distrust (yeah, right) whereas old firefox could distcc).
Has anyone gotten back down to a 1-minute kernel compile with modern hardware? My "fast" machine is old and slow now compared to modern machines, but even when it was new, I couldn't get kernel compile times back to a minute and a half or so when I had my dual overclocked celerons, though it got close - maybe 2 and a half minutes.
On the other hand, that dual celeron machine will take much longer to build that kernel.
Now my i7 takes probably 5 mins or so for a recent kernel, but I haven't timed it in a while. _________________ Intel Core i7 2700K/Radeon R7 250/24GB DDR3/256GB SSD
What am I supposed watching? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Goverp Veteran
Joined: 07 Mar 2007 Posts: 1994
|
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 8:27 am Post subject: Re: Long term build times |
|
|
Garbanzo wrote: | As time goes by computers get faster and software gets bigger. Over the long run, will build times get longer or shorter? How does the time to update world for a general purpose desktop compare to 10 years ago? What might it look like 10 years from now? |
Long term software performance is subject to Parkinson's Law (effectively the cure for Moore's Law); code bloats until it's no longer realistic to compile it. (The same's true for the applications themselves.)
In 10 years time, we'll still be moaning that Chromium takes hours to compile, despite having 256 cores running at 4 GHz and 100 GB memory _________________ Greybeard |
|
Back to top |
|
|
C5ace Guru
Joined: 23 Dec 2013 Posts: 472 Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 9:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
My former employer has a industrial application written in C++. The applications had to be customized and recompiled for each customer. Compile time was about 6 hours. They rewrote the application in C. Compile time was cut to 1.5 hours. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
eccerr0r Watchman
Joined: 01 Jul 2004 Posts: 9677 Location: almost Mile High in the USA
|
Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2018 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
When people moan about compile times, the bean counters then end up using interpreted languages... an even worse solution... _________________ Intel Core i7 2700K/Radeon R7 250/24GB DDR3/256GB SSD
What am I supposed watching? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Anon-E-moose Watchman
Joined: 23 May 2008 Posts: 6097 Location: Dallas area
|
Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2018 6:40 pm Post subject: Re: Long term build times |
|
|
Goverp wrote: | Long term software performance is subject to Parkinson's Law (effectively the cure for Moore's Law); code bloats until it's no longer realistic to compile it. |
++ _________________ PRIME x570-pro, 3700x, 6.1 zen kernel
gcc 13, profile 17.0 (custom bare multilib), openrc, wayland |
|
Back to top |
|
|
John R. Graham Administrator
Joined: 08 Mar 2005 Posts: 10587 Location: Somewhere over Atlanta, Georgia
|
Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2018 7:14 pm Post subject: Re: Long term build times |
|
|
Muso wrote: | Garbanzo wrote: | As time goes by computers get faster and software gets bigger. Over the long run, will build times get longer or shorter? How does the time to update world for a general purpose desktop compare to 10 years ago? What might it look like 10 years from now? |
Shorter, for sure.
With 1220 packages installed, including libreoffice & firefox, an emerge -e @world takes this system about 13 hours or so. Years back, well over 24 hours would have been needed, especially considering the size of the newer browsers. | Yes, shorter for sure. On my first Gentoo installation in 2005, running on a 90 MHz Pentium I with (eventually) 128MiB of RAM, compiling GCC took a week.
- John _________________ I can confirm that I have received between 0 and 499 National Security Letters. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
eccerr0r Watchman
Joined: 01 Jul 2004 Posts: 9677 Location: almost Mile High in the USA
|
Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2018 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, in 2005, the P90 is already almost a decade old, so that's not a proper comparison - else I could say my old K6-233 takes a 2 months to build current software and conclude software compile times are O(n!) as time goes on...
Need to at least compare mediocre P3 (the P4 was introduced in 2005) compilation times, say a P3-600, and that 1 week compilation time drops to a day - 24 hours - and we're back to where we started...
Software compilation times are disgusting. _________________ Intel Core i7 2700K/Radeon R7 250/24GB DDR3/256GB SSD
What am I supposed watching? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
John R. Graham Administrator
Joined: 08 Mar 2005 Posts: 10587 Location: Somewhere over Atlanta, Georgia
|
Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2018 8:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Not really: Code: | ~ # genlop -t sys-devel/gcc-7.3.0-r3
* sys-devel/gcc
Fri Jun 22 15:30:04 2018 >>> sys-devel/gcc-7.3.0-r3
merge time: 26 minutes and 8 seconds.
~ # </proc/cpuinfo grep 'model name' | head -n1
model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2643 v3 @ 3.40GHz | Also, I'm sure that modern gcc is a much bigger program than it was in 2005.
- John _________________ I can confirm that I have received between 0 and 499 National Security Letters. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
eccerr0r Watchman
Joined: 01 Jul 2004 Posts: 9677 Location: almost Mile High in the USA
|
Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2018 9:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I also wonder if it really took 24 hours to build gcc on a P3-600 or 1 week on a P90 too, unless you were running on poorly configured hardware.
I had a personal record of a 5 hour Linux 0.99pl12 compile time on a 386DX40 - but this is also not a proper compile time comparison as I know it was swapping to a slow hard drive the whole time, a "then modern" disk upgrade on the same machine dropped the compile time to an hour; but even this was not a proper comparison as 486DX2's were already out by then.
Also it took me almost 6+ hours to compile gcc-2.something on a 33MHz SPARC clone with only 8MB RAM, but once again that machine was suboptimal as it was badly swapping all along the way.
All in all, this is a hard question to answer unless there are some baselines available (like no/minimal swapping, using "modern" hardware available at the time and not already outdated, etc.) I do have to say that SSDs are probably the largest bump that happened to computer speeds in recent times as CPU CPS and IPC have been slow to increase, but compile times should not be disk limited -- unless it was swapping. _________________ Intel Core i7 2700K/Radeon R7 250/24GB DDR3/256GB SSD
What am I supposed watching? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
John R. Graham Administrator
Joined: 08 Mar 2005 Posts: 10587 Location: Somewhere over Atlanta, Georgia
|
Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2018 12:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have to eat a little crow here. my emerge.log: | 05/31/05 20:16:21: === (4 of 25) Compiling/Merging (sys-devel/gcc-3.3.5.20050130-r1::/usr/portage/sys-devel/gcc/gcc-3.3.5.20050130-r1.ebuild)
06/01/05 06:19:12: === (4 of 25) Post-Build Cleaning (sys-devel/gcc-3.3.5.20050130-r1::/usr/portage/sys-devel/gcc/gcc-3.3.5.20050130-r1.ebuild)
| Clearly I mis-remembered; gcc took about 8 hours on that Pentium I.
What I was apparently remembering was an "emerge --emptytree system" that I did shortly thereafter. That did take a week.
- John _________________ I can confirm that I have received between 0 and 499 National Security Letters. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|