Optimized kernel builds: the straight dope

[Jamie Jones]

On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 12:20 +1000, Jamie Jones wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-08-14 at 17:33 -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> 
> > Having read over it, I think the numbers are fairly compelling.  The
> > difference in performance between -386 and -686 is insigificant; the
> > measurements are all within a reasonable error range, and within that range,
> > -686 was slower as often as it was faster.
> > 
> > My recommendation is that we phase out these additional kernel builds, which
> > I expect will save us a great deal of developer time, buildd time, archive
> > storage and bandwidth.
> > 
> > I'm interested to hear (objective, reasoned) feedback on this data and my
> > conclusions from the members of this list.
> 
> Do we have a monkeys guide to reproducing this benchmark. I'd like to
> see the effects it has on Amd boxes, and other Intel boxes. If you have
> a monkeys guild (rather step by step and ideally with the exact same
> config used by Ben), I can add some K7, and K8 datapoints (dapper boxes
> though)
> 
> Regards,
> Yagisan

No takers ?

It is a shame to see a decision being taken on 2 Intel machines that may
or may not be typical, especially considering there doesn't appear to be
data from any other machines to offer a more balanced viewpoint.

Regards,
Yagisan
-- 
GPG/PGP signed mail preferred. No HTML mail. No MS Word attachments
PGP Key ID 0x4B6E7209
Fingerprint E1FD 9D7E 6BB4 1BD4 AEB9 3091 0027 CEFA 4B6E 7209
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20060824/5fbdd36c/attachment.pgp