Find the answer to your Linux question:
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24
1. Configure systems with similar amounts of virtual memory (swap space), adequate for compilation and other needs. 2. Eliminate all but basic services. No daemons other than that reequired to ...
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
  1. #11
    Linux Guru Rubberman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    I can be found either 40 miles west of Chicago, in Chicago, or in a galaxy far, far away.
    Posts
    11,453

    1. Configure systems with similar amounts of virtual memory (swap space), adequate for compilation and other needs.
    2. Eliminate all but basic services. No daemons other than that reequired to boot and run basic OS.
    3. Boot systems into console mode (no windows)
    4. Compile w/ time test code (same for both systems).

    This will give you an idea which is better for your compilation needs. The key thing is to eliminate all but basic services. No NFS, SSH, inetd, et al. For a proper comparison, you need to have comparable configurations. That's not always easy when you are comparing apples and oranges...
    Sometimes, real fast is almost as good as real time.
    Just remember, Semper Gumbi - always be flexible!

  2. #12
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    uk
    Posts
    46
    4. Compile w/ time test code (same for both systems).
    ok right what code should i use to test it?
    There has been no mention of swap partition size also.
    well dsl has 337MB of swap space and ubuntu has 423MB of ram.

  3. #13
    Linux Guru Rubberman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    I can be found either 40 miles west of Chicago, in Chicago, or in a galaxy far, far away.
    Posts
    11,453
    Configure them to have the same amount of ram + swap. For code, get just about any decent size application (or kernel) with a mix of small and large source files. Use the same source to build on both systems. As I said, the systems aren't identical, and will have different versions of libraries, etc. but you should get some idea if the systems are wildly different in their software build performance, which is what I thought the original posting/question was trying to determine.
    Sometimes, real fast is almost as good as real time.
    Just remember, Semper Gumbi - always be flexible!

  4. #14
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    uk
    Posts
    46
    ok well i've been trying to think since yesterday of a piece of software but i can't think of any that won't have to many compile dependencies. any ideas?

  5. #15
    Linux Guru Rubberman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    I can be found either 40 miles west of Chicago, in Chicago, or in a galaxy far, far away.
    Posts
    11,453
    Most source packages of linux applications have a configure script to enable it to be built on different Linux distributions without a lot of trouble. I go to the source and do that when the binary (rpm) version (if available) won't install on my RHEL/CentOS 5 system. I've been able to build a lot of newer software that way. So, find something reasonably complex, such as audacity, and try it to see if it will configure and build. If you get errors in the configuration phase, then you will likely need to change some of the default options. Typically, the configure script has a --help option which will give you all of the user-settable options, such as leaving out some components, etc.
    Sometimes, real fast is almost as good as real time.
    Just remember, Semper Gumbi - always be flexible!

  6. #16
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    uk
    Posts
    46
    yeah i'd thought of audacity but to compile it you need wxwidgets installed which in turn needs gtk. the problem being is i can't seem to get gtk to install on dsl.

  7. #17
    Linux Guru Rubberman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    I can be found either 40 miles west of Chicago, in Chicago, or in a galaxy far, far away.
    Posts
    11,453
    Ok. Then something else, without a major GUI component, such as Postgres-SQL.
    Sometimes, real fast is almost as good as real time.
    Just remember, Semper Gumbi - always be flexible!

  8. #18
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    uk
    Posts
    46
    ok i managed to try to compile postgresql and here's the results. dsl took 6min 38sec to compile it and ubuntu took 5min 50sec to compile. that with both of them in the command line.

  9. #19
    Linux Guru Rubberman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    I can be found either 40 miles west of Chicago, in Chicago, or in a galaxy far, far away.
    Posts
    11,453
    So, it seems that the Ubuntu system is marginally faster than the DSL one. Since it has the slower processor, but more memory (I assume they have the same number of processor cores), then you can see the effects of more memory (or faster disc). Performance comparisons between two such different systems (both hardware and software) are very difficult because factoring in all of the contributing elements is at worst subjective, and at best difficult to measure in absolute terms. In many cases, it is mostly a matter of "Is it fast enough?", or "Is it too slow for production needs?".
    Sometimes, real fast is almost as good as real time.
    Just remember, Semper Gumbi - always be flexible!

  10. #20
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    uk
    Posts
    46
    (I assume they have the same number of processor cores)
    yes both have one core.

    ok so could you estimate a rough compile time for the linux 2.6 kernel?
    now that you know how long that took to compile or is it something that the only way to find out is to do it?

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •