[distcc] Re: benchmark gimp-1.2.3

[Martin Pool]

On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 16:28 -0800, Dan Kegel wrote:
> On 1/4/06, Martin Pool <mbp at sourcefrog.net> wrote:
> > I think this is actually a bug in the gimp makefiles rather than
> > anything else; the benchmark was as much about discovering which or how
> > many projects would work well with distcc as it is about benchmarking
> > distcc itself.
> 
> Aha.  OK, good to know.
> 
> > Perhaps changing to a later version would work better.
> 
> I think she tried using the latest, but it was hard to build
> for other reasons.  I'd say just comment gimp out
> of the benchmark script.

Perhaps the benchmark could be enhanced to allow for projects that are
not built by default, or not expected to build with -j.  (It's sometimes
interesting to do non-parallel remote builds.)

I've just changed the benchmark to do gimp-2.2.10 and it worked once
with -j3.  (Gotta love concurrency bugs. :-)

> (A good candidate replacement might be garnome,
> which explicitly includes all dependencies.
> It might be *too* big, though... it takes six hours to build
> without distcc.)

I did benchmark it a few times a while ago and did notice significant
speedups, though a number of gnome trees are not -j safe.  In particular
building from a laptop onto a faster machine without -j was still quite
a big win, which surprised and pleased me at the time.  One part of it
may have been that it reduced the memory pressure on the laptop, since
it didn't have to keep much but the source and include files in memory.

In fact the download/check/unpack/etc idea was inspired by using garnome
for testing.

It could be good as a project that's off by default.

-- 
Martin

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/distcc/attachments/20060105/4abc34c0/attachment.bin