Mike McCarty Mike.McCarty at sbcglobal.net
Fri Mar 25 14:39:02 PDT 2011

Neal Murphy wrote:
> On Tuesday 22 March 2011 17:10:52 Mike McCarty wrote:
>> Why do you say that? IME, most of the time is spent in the
>> compiler, not reading the CD-ROM. It takes a few seconds to
>> read the CD-ROM to get the compiler going, and then it runs.
>> Usually, most of it gets cached.
> Only if you have enough RAM. Taking a SWAG, 2GB ought to be enough to cache 

Even much less. If there is enough RAM to hold the compiler, it
takes a few seconds to load it up, and then it runs from memory.
I've built from LiveCD with 512MB of RAM, and most of the time
was waiting on the processor, not the disc.

> the utilities (binutils, gcc, et al) and libs and leave working space for 
> building the tool chain. To build LFS (the basic system), I imagine 6-7GB 
> would be enough to cache the whole build. Once the tools and utilities are 

That corresponds to my experience. The entire build took up 10GB on
disc, max, and not everything needs to be cached.


> When building my version of Smoothwall on my quad-core 8GB desktop system, 
> I've found that about 6.5GB of stuff gets cached over the 90-120 minute build; 
> LFS should be similar in size, maybe 1GB smaller. I also found that preloading 
> a 7GB ramdisk only saves about 5 minutes real time building from scratch; it 
> takes at least that long to load the ramdisk with the source tarballs, 
> patches, &cet. Linux's file caching is *very* good when you have enough RAM.

Those are interesting figures. Thanks!

Oppose globalization and One World Governments like the UN.
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!

More information about the lfs-support mailing list