From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261804AbVF0E0p (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Jun 2005 00:26:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261803AbVF0E0o (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Jun 2005 00:26:44 -0400 Received: from h80ad25a1.async.vt.edu ([128.173.37.161]:18054 "EHLO h80ad25a1.async.vt.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261807AbVF0EZJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Jun 2005 00:25:09 -0400 Message-Id: <200506270423.j5R4Np9n004510@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.2 01/07/2005 with nmh-1.1-RC3 To: David Masover Cc: Lincoln Dale , Gregory Maxwell , Hans Reiser , Horst von Brand , Jeff Garzik , Christoph Hellwig , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ReiserFS List Subject: Re: reiser4 plugins In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 26 Jun 2005 21:37:48 CDT." <42BF667C.50606@slaphack.com> From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu References: <200506240241.j5O2f1eb005609@laptop11.inf.utfsm.cl> <42BCD93B.7030608@slaphack.com> <200506251420.j5PEKce4006891@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <42BDA377.6070303@slaphack.com> <200506252031.j5PKVb4Y004482@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <42BDC422.6020401@namesys.com> <42BE3645.4070806@cisco.com> <42BE563D.4000402@cisco.com> <42BE5DB6.8040103@slaphack.com> <200506261816.j5QIGMdI010142@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <42BF08CF.2020703@slaphack.com> <200506262105.j5QL5kdR018609@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <42BF2DC4.8030901@slaphack.com> <200506270040.j5R0eUNA030632@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <42BF667C.50606@slaphack.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_1119846230_3633P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 00:23:50 -0400 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --==_Exmh_1119846230_3633P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 21:37:48 CDT, David Masover said: > Assume we can do on-disk caching, similar to fscache/cachefs for nfs. > Now, benchmark: > > $ unzip linux-2.6.12.zip && make -C linux-2.6.12 > > versus the hypothetical > > $ make -C linux-2.6.12.zip/.../contents > > This is an automatic performance gain, in theory, because the second > command is identical to unzipping just the parts you need into > linux-2.6.12, then running "make". Nope, they're not identical. The first specifically unzips it into the file system, leaving the zip file intact. The second, you're having to take all those .o files and other stuff that the 'make' generates and put them back into the .zip file *on the fly* - when the 'make' is half done, the .zip should reflect a directory tree that has had half the make execute.... (Think - after that hyptothetical 'make' completes, where is 'vmlinux'? ;) --==_Exmh_1119846230_3633P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQFCv39WcC3lWbTT17ARAnKeAKDZdxXYC0EQZ1VRglKzg/4J/KSbFgCfX5v9 azwJHdOITWjpAGEES9st47c= =QZyr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_1119846230_3633P--