Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everybody knows the REAL test is a FreeBSD 'make world' anyway :)
I used to think 'make world' on BSD was some big deal until I started to synthesize HDL code to bitfiles or GDS.
What is GDS in this context?
Threadripper 3960X Compiles Linux Kernel in Under 30 Seconds
41–50 of 57 posts
Re: Threadripper 3960X Compiles Linux Kernel in Under 30 Seconds
#42Wow... I still remember recompiling the NetBSD kernel on my Amiga 3000 to tweak the timings on my Retina Z3. Took 14 hours to compile the kernel... So if processors are now >1500x faster than they were in 1991, why is it that my Amiga 3000 has a faster, more responsive UI? Why is it that an ssh session takes 8 seconds to establish? Why is it that browsing a network share is 10x slower than viewing a file list was on…
How many -b bits did you specify for ssh-keygen?
And today’s software is more than 1500x the size.
Re: Threadripper 3960X Compiles Linux Kernel in Under 30 Seconds
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? Isn't that within a modest error margin for the general arc of these? I'm looking at this graph over time and it seems like a linear projection wouldn't be broken by this. "The next generation of processors is not quite twice as fast as the current generation" just seems like a pretty normal statement to me.
The last decade has been pretty stagnant in CPU development. That AMD has gotten ahead, and is making significant CPU advancements in each generation for the past two years, is something we haven't seen in 10-15 years.
Has it though? We've been seeing meteoric improvements in low power applications and in specialized processing packages like GPUs, TPUs and SBUs.
That desktop CPU performance has slowed down is more a sign to me of fundamental challenges with the architecture (e.g., gains at the cost of isolation as in Specter and Meltdown), not process challenges.
So I think maybe this is story for folks who have interest in AMD vs. Intel, which is reasonable, but it's not particularly exciting except from a vendor diversity standpoint.
Re: Threadripper 3960X Compiles Linux Kernel in Under 30 Seconds
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? Isn't that within a modest error margin for the general arc of these? I'm looking at this graph over time and it seems like a linear projection wouldn't be broken by this. "The next generation of processors is not quite twice as fast as the current generation" just seems like a pretty normal statement to me.
Dont take these gains for granted. We're nearing the physical limit for current technologies. Transistors a handful of atoms across. My guess is in 20 years we will celebrate a 5 percent gain.
I'm not sure that's true for other parts of the market. Certainly single board computers and microcontrollers have been seeing incredible gains, as have TPUs and GPUs.
It is cool we are reaching limits for our current process, but I was under the impression that in a post-Specter/Meltdown world what we're really waiting for is new architectures that support better speed under safe isolation.
Re: Threadripper 3960X Compiles Linux Kernel in Under 30 Seconds
#45I don't really understand why this is newsworthy, so maybe someone could help me understand. It's a big, power hungry desktop CPU with incremental performance gains over the last generation. Why is this important? Is there some kind of architectural breakthrough these CPUs are using? Are these CPUs recovering performance lost to Spectre/Meltdown mitigation?
This is a big power hungry desktop CPU with incremental performance gains with the x86/x64 instruction set from someone not Intel and forcing intel to compete on pricing and performance. Just that alone is newsworthy.
I think that's it: it's sort of an intel vs AMD interest piece. It's newsworthy in that it's a market signal, not a technology signal. The desktop CPU market segment is seeing a lot of transformation as secondary purpose built processors and SBCs become more and more of the market, so this is just sort of a fun puff piece.
Thanks for helping me answer the question.
Re: Threadripper 3960X Compiles Linux Kernel in Under 30 Seconds
#46It's a beast, but ... that's not a very impressive measure. Bellard strikes again -
From [0], in 2004: TCCBOOT is a boot loader able to compile and boot a Linux kernel directly from its source code. It is only 138 KB big (uncompressed code) and it can compile and run a typical Linux kernel in less than 15 seconds on a 2.4 GHz Pentium 4.
[0] https://bellard.org/tcc/tccboot.html [2004]
Re: Threadripper 3960X Compiles Linux Kernel in Under 30 Seconds
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
The last decade has been pretty stagnant in CPU development. That AMD has gotten ahead, and is making significant CPU advancements in each generation for the past two years, is something we haven't seen in 10-15 years.
Yep. My top-of-the-line Threadripper 1950X is already multiple generations behind the bleeding edge; I built that machine last year , and there are already newer CPUs blowing it out of the water. It reminds me of the 90's when Moore's Law was still a Law-with-a-capital-L and I love it .
Other than benchmarks, do you actually feel this? Dev environments have gone to great lengths to reduce the total amount of compilation required and for nearly every other application, a GPU does most of the work. And if you've got a lot of ML to do, you probably would save more time with a TPU.
I don't really see what the point of faster desktop CPUs are without being accompanied by substantial power use reduction. I'm a software engineer and other than when I'm lazy about my Haskell build process and dont offload it to a farm, it doesnt really seem to matter at all. It doesnt come into play with my CAD work, and it doesn't make my Java GC cycles faster.
Re: Threadripper 3960X Compiles Linux Kernel in Under 30 Seconds
#48Wow... I still remember recompiling the NetBSD kernel on my Amiga 3000 to tweak the timings on my Retina Z3. Took 14 hours to compile the kernel... So if processors are now >1500x faster than they were in 1991, why is it that my Amiga 3000 has a faster, more responsive UI? Why is it that an ssh session takes 8 seconds to establish? Why is it that browsing a network share is 10x slower than viewing a file list was on…
Edit your sshd config and add useDNS: no to it, don't forget to restart the deamon.
Either way, I get your point, I remember programming in Delphi, compiling, chatting on IRC and browsing the net with a 56K Winmodem (all the modulation was software driven) with a Pentium 2 all at the same time, and now I can't even have and IDE and slack open at the same time.
Re: Threadripper 3960X Compiles Linux Kernel in Under 30 Seconds
#49Wow... I still remember recompiling the NetBSD kernel on my Amiga 3000 to tweak the timings on my Retina Z3. Took 14 hours to compile the kernel... So if processors are now >1500x faster than they were in 1991, why is it that my Amiga 3000 has a faster, more responsive UI? Why is it that an ssh session takes 8 seconds to establish? Why is it that browsing a network share is 10x slower than viewing a file list was on…
Edit your sshd config and add useDNS: no to it, don't forget to restart the deamon. Either way, I get your point, I remember programming in Delphi, compiling, chatting on IRC and browsing the net with a 56K Winmodem (all the modulation was software driven) with a Pentium 2 all at the same time, and now I can't even have and IDE and slack open at the same time.
IDE? Slack? "There's your problem right there."
Re: Threadripper 3960X Compiles Linux Kernel in Under 30 Seconds
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
I used to think 'make world' on BSD was some big deal until I started to synthesize HDL code to bitfiles or GDS.
What is GDS in this context?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GDSII
File format commonly used for wafer masks.