compile speed on lfs 5.0

mrnobby no at spam.please
Tue May 4 13:23:14 PDT 2004


"Bart Van Hove" <bartvanhove at skynet.be> wrote in message
news:1083622525.12080.1.camel at rocky.bartbox.homeip.net...
> On Mon, 2004-05-03 at 20:49, mrnobby wrote:
> > "shelton" <shelton at onr.com> wrote in message
> > news:40957D37.4070108 at onr.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > mrnobby wrote:
> > > > I've built LFS 5.0 on a P233 MMX.
> > > >
> > > > I'm rebuilding LFS 5.0 using the above LFS 5.0 build as the host
on
> > the
> > > > same machine.
> > > >
> > > > Why are my compile times now twice as long?
> > > >
> > > > Mr Nobby.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > has the hardware changed at all?
> > > what services and programs are you running while compiling?
> > > if this isn't a live production must have online all the
> > > time system
> > > (which is doubtful, why rebuild a live mission critical system)
> > > then try dropping down to runlevel 1 when building.
> > Nothing has changed. I built LFS on RH7, now I'm trying to build LFS
on
> > LFS, nothing has changed in between. Changing to init 1 won't halve
the
> > time will it?
> >
> > Mr Nobby.
>
> Well who knows? This obviousely has got something to do with your
> software, though I doubt it's compiled badly if you followed the LFS
> Book. Have you used particular optimization flags?
Well as far as I know I followed the book to the letter (even copy &
pasting commands) everything else seems to work fine.

> Changing to init 1 might help if some application in higher runlevels
is
> hogging resources. You might want to check top and free too while not
> compiling.
I'll try that and report back.

> BTW: You're sure you're not comparing apples and oranges? By this I
> mean: the RH compile didn't have the configure chached while the LFS
> hasn't, right?
I'm not sure what you mean, I'm just running in the commands one after
the other so there might be some cahcheing for the smaller packages but
the big ones like gcc seem to be swapping.

I think I should state again that everything, apart from the host is the
same, same RAM, same disk, etc.

Thanks,

Mr Nobby.





More information about the lfs-support mailing list