SBUs

Bruce Dubbs bdubbs at swbell.net
Thu Apr 14 15:39:34 PDT 2005


Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 04/14/05 17:24 CST:
> 
>>Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 04/14/05 17:08 CST:
>>
>>
>>>  Estimated build time: < 0.1 SBU
>>
>>To me, the *lack* of precision in this example is much more misleading
>>that what we have now.
>>
>>Let's say for the sake of roundness, binutils takes 2.5 minutes (two
>>and one-half). Now 0.1 SBU would be 15 seconds.
>>
>>This would be way wrong for a package that compiles and installs
>>in one, or two seconds. To the point it would look like we didn't
>>know how to do elementary calculations.
> 
> 
> I initially overlooked the less than sign in your example. With
> the less than sign, it now makes sense to me. It would work, for
> example, a machine that takes 10 minutes to do binutils, we are
> saying that a < 0.1 SBU package would take under a minute.
> 
> That would probably work, as SBU's are bit of a stretch to pinpoint
> accurately. Too many unknowns. It's not just CPU speed, but the
> speed of the disk, amount of RAM and other variables we can't
> account for.

Right.  Perhaps to make it more obvious we should say:

   Estimated build time: less than 0.1 SBU

   -- Bruce






More information about the blfs-dev mailing list