Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: Memory upgrade: not faster / nfs | Date | Sun, 27 Oct 1996 04:03:36 -0600 (CST) | From | Keith Rohrer <> |
| |
> On Sat, 26 Oct 1996, Keith Rohrer wrote: > [...] > > > I think there is some option that makes the compiler write out in bigger > > Howsabout -pipe? Saves you all the intermediate files except the > > .o's...and would cut those out too if it weren't for that "separate > > compilation" thing. > Well the kernel has that already, but I think ld writes each section in > the binary in a differant write and so thats 19 in a single ELF binary I > have here, and it's only 4963 bytes long (That's AFAIK tho). Perhaps. Then again, when you're doing a kernel build it's all gcc and occsionally ar up until the end, same for most packages one would compile.
> Oh, that option could be a compile time option of ld, it basically has the > effect of coalescing (sp?) the writes, Solaris ld mmap's the executable and msyncs at the end, and winds up exposing lusers^H^H^H^H^H^Hstudents who don't know how to "man -k msync" to an error message that pretty much always means they're out of space (hard or quota). Presumably, this writes (or should write) in maximal/optimal sized chunks. I have no clue what gnu ld does, though.
> > Plus, ramdisks are your friend...a version of tmpfs > > which doesn't crash the system for lack of memory when you > > cat /dev/zero > /tmp/foo (or otherwise fill up /tmp) which could run in > > a ramdisk (which would be only one of the swap spaces) would do wonders > Hmm, I would have thought that this was a bad idea, unless you have loads > of memory (remember he is also activly swaping over nfs too, so I think > this is out). The original poster was complaining about having thrown an additional 32 megs into a dickless workstation and not seeing much performance improvement. Either using -pipe or using a small ramdisk for /tmp would reduce the NFS problem for compilation to just the source, .o's, and executable; tempfs would've reclaimed all unused parts of the ramdisk as a hunk of swap space (and vice versa). I'm not quite certain what the aversion to a local hard drive in the machine was, but I'm sure there's a reason, maybe even a good one.
Keith
Disclaimer: Do not taunt Happy Fun God.
|  |