| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
psycho
Guru
Joined: 22 Jun 2007
Posts: 541
Location: New Zealand
|
 Posted: Fri Apr 23, 2021 4:17 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Thanks for the jumbo-build tip. Even with that (and 16GB RAM) this old i5 took 4 hours and 14 minutes. More than twice as long as libreoffice...so qtwebengine wins first place for worst package to build. Then again I'm using google-chrome rather than chromium as that bastard not only took ages but seemed to want a rebuild every few days (I guess that's normal these days for browsers): factoring in the time before having to rebuild it again I imagine chromium would still win (though it's a while since I've bothered trying). |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
eccerr0r
Watchman
Joined: 01 Jul 2004
Posts: 9767
Location: almost Mile High in the USA
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 23, 2021 7:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
At least qtwebengine can be used to kill your distcc farm. Not so much with rust... (Oh and I always use -pipe...)
I think I should be glad I don't need qtwebengine on my atom-1.6GHz. Rust already takes over a day to build on it.
_________________
Intel Core i7 2700K/Radeon R7 250/24GB DDR3/256GB SSD
What am I supposed watching? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
psycho
Guru
Joined: 22 Jun 2007
Posts: 541
Location: New Zealand
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 23, 2021 11:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Coincidentally rust was dragging its heels just as I read that. Average build time is only 53 minutes but it took almost exactly two hours. Looks like USE="cpu_flags_x86_sse2" and some new CFLAGS actually doubled the build time. Oh...unless disk access *does* matter for rust. After testing and finding no noticeable speed improvements from building on an SSD I swapped it back to a spinning hard disk, and most stuff seems to be building at around the same speeds (regardless of the disk and CFLAGS changes)...but rust took twice as long. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fitzcarraldo
Advocate
Joined: 30 Aug 2008
Posts: 2052
Location: United Kingdom
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 23, 2021 12:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hu wrote: | | Historically, HDDs offered a better price/capacity ratio than SSDs. At the scale that Backblaze operates hardware, they might have decided to wait for the ratio to become more favorable before switching over. |
Given what andy Klein wrote, I think it's not a question yet of 'price/capacity ratio'; Backblaze is still assessing SSD reliability:
| Andy Klein, Backblaze wrote: | | We are validating the SMART and failure data we are collecting on these SSD boot drives. |
_________________
Clevo W230SS: amd64, VIDEO_CARDS="intel modesetting nvidia".
Compal NBLB2: ~amd64, xf86-video-ati. Dual boot Win 7 Pro 64-bit.
OpenRC systemd-utils[udev] elogind KDE on both.
My blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eccerr0r
Watchman
Joined: 01 Jul 2004
Posts: 9767
Location: almost Mile High in the USA
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 23, 2021 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| psycho wrote: | | Coincidentally rust was dragging its heels just as I read that. Average build time is only 53 minutes but it took almost exactly two hours. Looks like USE="cpu_flags_x86_sse2" and some new CFLAGS actually doubled the build time. |
Probably the new version, rust has required SSE2 for quite a while I thought?
Rust also uses a lot of RAM if your jobs settings are not quite right. Its behavior on -j -l MAKEOPTS flags seems very odd IMHO.
_________________
Intel Core i7 2700K/Radeon R7 250/24GB DDR3/256GB SSD
What am I supposed watching? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hu
Administrator
Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 22420
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 23, 2021 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fitzcarraldo wrote: | Given what andy Klein wrote, I think it's not a question yet of 'price/capacity ratio'; Backblaze is still assessing SSD reliability: | Andy Klein, Backblaze wrote: | | We are validating the SMART and failure data we are collecting on these SSD boot drives. |
|
They are assessing that now, yes. However, SSDs have been available for many years now. They could have started the migration and assessment a long time ago, but for some reason, they only recently started considering SSDs as even worth assessing. My point above was that they might have been deferring the assessment on the basis that, until relatively recently, the price/capacity ratio, at the scale they want to operate, was not compelling even if the assessment had yielded acceptable results. Now, they are finally at a point where, if the assessment comes back positive, they would seriously consider migrating. | eccerr0r wrote: | | Probably the new version, rust has required SSE2 for quite a while I thought? |
I think rustc has never worked on an i686 that lacked SSE2. However, it may be relatively new that the ebuild enforces that you set CPU_FLAGS_X86=sse2. This setting would cause Portage to warn users who disabled SSE2 (presumably because their CPU does not support it). An ebuild without that requirement would try to proceed, but then such systems would encounter a rustc crash when rustc used SSE2 instructions anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eccerr0r
Watchman
Joined: 01 Jul 2004
Posts: 9767
Location: almost Mile High in the USA
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 24, 2021 12:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think SSDs will remain to be crappy for cost/endurance ratio.
Seems pretty much all the new "inexpensive" "large capacity" ssds seem to be all TLC or worse, and their endurance cycles are even worse than MLC and SLC where SLC is the gold standard. The "large capacity" SSDs tend to disguise the fact that endurance cycles are bad because they are making assumptions on how data is being stored on the disk - like a typical "consumer" load versus an "enterprise" or "development" load. For consumers these large capacity SSDs work exceptionally well despite low endurance - nobody will really see the drive fail from endurance failures unless they are using them for the enterprise or development.
SSDs: "High Capacity" "High endurance" "Cheap" ... pick two, and get REALLY shafted on the third.
(BTW, surveillance and pvr functionality unfortunately count as enterprise workloads and likely will kill ssds...)
_________________
Intel Core i7 2700K/Radeon R7 250/24GB DDR3/256GB SSD
What am I supposed watching? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony0945
Watchman
Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 5127
Location: Illinois, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 24, 2021 12:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| As I read oncve "Good, fast, cheap...pick any two" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steve_v
Guru
Joined: 20 Jun 2004
Posts: 404
Location: New Zealand
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 24, 2021 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| eccerr0r wrote: | | SSDs: "High Capacity" "High endurance" "Cheap" ... pick two, and get REALLY shafted on the third. |
On that note (and very off topic), I'm kinda in the market for a couple of small (~60GB), reasonably fast, high-endurance SATA SSDs (as cheaply as possible of course)... Any suggestions where i might find such a beast?
<120GB SSDs don't seem to exist any more, at least not over here, and everything in the consumer-grade market seems to be bragging on capacity and lies (AKA burst transfer rate) over anything else.
What I'm after is decent _sustained_ read/write performance, high endurance, and frankly I don't give a rats about $/GB as long as it's not too ridiculous. Apparently that's diametrically opposed to what the market is up to right now.
Is overprovisioning (i.e leaving a bunch of unpartitioned space) for endurance still a thing (or was it ever)?
_________________
Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action. Four times is Official GNOME Policy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eccerr0r
Watchman
Joined: 01 Jul 2004
Posts: 9767
Location: almost Mile High in the USA
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 24, 2021 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry, more off topic...
Overprovisioning was only for product consistency or clean buffer readiness - not for endurance.
For endurance, if you get a low endurance high quality 1TB SSD and only use 60GB, it probably will work just fine in lieu of a higher endurance 60GB drive. However you *must* resist the urge to use the "unused" space. Were you planning to use it as a cache or what?
_________________
Intel Core i7 2700K/Radeon R7 250/24GB DDR3/256GB SSD
What am I supposed watching? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steve_v
Guru
Joined: 20 Jun 2004
Posts: 404
Location: New Zealand
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 24, 2021 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| eccerr0r wrote: | | Were you planning to use it as a cache or what? |
Got it in one. 
Unfortunately it seems there are few options readily suited to the role outside specialised (and ludicrously expensive) enterprise solutions such as the optane series. I don't need that level of performance, and I'd quite like something that will drop into my existing 2.5" SATA hotswap bays. All I really want is some decent quality 60GB SLC drives to replace some decent quality 60GB SLC drives... Except nobody is selling them any more.
Frankly I'd be okay with just burning through small cheap SSDs... Only there don't appear to be any small SSDs available that aren't slow, unreliable, overheating DRAMless TLC garbage... And I'm not real keen to buy 1TB drives that are also TLC garbage either.
I'd even be willing to go back to decently fast spinning-rust, such as the 160GB 10k velociraptors I used to run in this role... Only I can't find anything like that for a sane price, because there's apparently no market whatsoever for low-capacity drives in general. 
On the overprovisioning bit, I was kinda hoping modern firmware would be smart enough to remap failing cells into unused space. It seems like a fairly logical thing to do, and were that the case I could just use a drive with 2 or 3x the capacity I need and anticipate 2 or 3X the write endurance... Right?
_________________
Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action. Four times is Official GNOME Policy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony0945
Watchman
Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 5127
Location: Illinois, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 24, 2021 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Don't know TLC from SLC but I had some cheap Team Group SSD's. The first was only $20. I just had to try it.
Just bought a 1T to replace a 540RPM hd in an old laptop. Only warranted for three years, but how long can the laptop last? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eccerr0r
Watchman
Joined: 01 Jul 2004
Posts: 9767
Location: almost Mile High in the USA
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 25, 2021 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah that's definitely a 'low endurance' TLC drive.
It completely depends on what you do with the drive. If you're just storing photos and checking mail... it'll do just fine.
Store a couple movies...store lots of photos... *stream* videos... it'll do just fine.
But if you plan to constantly bittorrent new movies to watch and delete them after you're done... not so fine...
or if you 0 4 * * 0 emerge --sync && emerge -uDU @world ... who knows, depending on how many packages you have and how much you swap, could kill this disk fairly quickly ... or not...
Currently I'm using a MLC drive that I had been using as a primary disk to cache my disk array. Also wondering how long it'll last, though my rewrite rate or hot spots aren't exceedingly high. All depends on the rewrite.
_________________
Intel Core i7 2700K/Radeon R7 250/24GB DDR3/256GB SSD
What am I supposed watching? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony0945
Watchman
Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 5127
Location: Illinois, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 25, 2021 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Actually it's the primary drive for an appliance PC for recording TV built out of scraps with only two new parts. A 2TB WD Black HHD for video storage and a $42 Antec case.
Running Gentoo but no reason to update software. It does it's job and does it well. The ancient Athlon II X3 with only 4G RAM really flies running from the SSD.
So it all depends on what you want. "Good, Fast, Cheap - pick any two" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Portage & Programming
