results.txt   [plain text]



 nevada		0.12
 proforma	HEAD
 vexed		HEAD 

Now on 100Mbps switched copper.

Building linux-2.4.19 with vexed's configuration, making bzImage

CC=gcc-3.2 make  266.51s user 13.92s system 89% cpu 5:13.67 total

CC='distcc gcc-3.2' make -j6  266.78s user 12.09s system 95% cpu 4:51.52 total

Not very good!

The kernel requires CC to be on the RHS of the make command!


  make -j6 CC='distcc gcc-3.2'  140.07s user 11.31s system 87% cpu 2:52.95 total

The original number was not using gcc-3.2, which is probably slower
than 2.95.

  make CC=gcc-3.2 bzImage  362.28s user 15.12s system 93% cpu 6:45.13 total

  == 405.13s

So three machines are about 2.34 times faster, or 0.78% of theoretical

With localhost at the back:

  make -j6 CC='distcc gcc-3.2'  149.44s user 12.45s system 94% cpu 2:51.79 total

In a way, this is a good sign, because we would hope that the ordering
doesn't make too much difference.

What about lots of jobs?

  make -j18 CC='distcc gcc-3.2'  125.03s user 11.02s system 90% cpu 2:30.15 total

At this level there is probably some thrashing, but I guess the
network is fully loaded.  This is a 2.6x speedup, or 0.899% of maximum
theoretical efficiency.  Not bad.

Without localhost it presumably can't be much better than 2.0x.

  make -j10 CC='distcc gcc-3.2'  42.65s user 9.11s system 27% cpu 3:07.25 total
  = 187.25s

2.164x speedup.
With distcc HEAD 2002-06-05

building linux-2.4.18 only on vexed:

real	4m47.966s
user	4m30.310s
sys	0m11.910s

building across "vexed jonquille nevada" -j6

119.94user 10.09system 2:22.60elapsed 91%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
0inputs+0outputs (520506major+473003minor)pagefaults 0swaps


building 2.4.18

on vexed only
make CC='gcc' -j5  239.01s user 10.32s system 81% cpu 5:05.11 total

across nevada, jonquille, localhost, with -j8

nice make -j8 CC='distcc gcc'  73.83s user 9.76s system 67% cpu 2:04.76 total

down to 40% of the time; ideally with three equal machines it would be
33%, i.e. 1:40.


distcc 0.10.1: building linux 2.2.18 without many options, on Linux
2.2 inside VMWare GSX server on Nevada (1x1700MHz):


real	4m16.888s
user	1m35.530s
sys	2m40.200s

Running only to the non-VMWare CPU of the same machine, is
interestingly enough marginally faster:

real	3m49.155s
user	0m5.300s
sys	0m49.340s

Running across the host CPU plus one others, with one invalid hostname
:-), with -j8:

real	2m13.100s
user	0m36.890s
sys	1m29.730s

With the host and two others:
real	1m42.437s
user	0m8.700s
sys	0m56.320s

With the guest CPU listed, rather than the native one:
(This might get better load balancing?)
real	1m44.003s
user	0m28.810s
sys	1m13.890s

With only the two other hosts and no avoidable jobs run locally:
real	2m19.007s
user	0m4.970s
sys	0m47.740s

So, interesting.  The current model of tries to balance up local and
remote jobs, taking into account that some (cpp and ld) can only be
run locally.  It seems to be doing a pretty good job.