From owner-freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Wed Jan 2 00:03:58 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arm@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61CAE142E729; Wed, 2 Jan 2019 00:03:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fbsd@www.zefox.net) Received: from www.zefox.net (www.zefox.net [50.1.20.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "www.zefox.org", Issuer "www.zefox.org" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C80256A22D; Wed, 2 Jan 2019 00:03:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fbsd@www.zefox.net) Received: from www.zefox.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by www.zefox.net (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x0204BPJ015092 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 1 Jan 2019 16:04:12 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from fbsd@www.zefox.net) Received: (from fbsd@localhost) by www.zefox.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id x0204Bo4015091; Tue, 1 Jan 2019 16:04:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from fbsd) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2019 16:04:11 -0800 From: bob prohaska To: Mark Millard Cc: freebsd-arm , freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How much memory to compile www/chromium? Message-ID: <20190102000411.GA14861@www.zefox.net> References: <20181212165313.GA84881@www.zefox.net> <20181212184149.ol44fon2unowu35q@squirrel.exwg.net> <20181212192115.GA85583@www.zefox.net> <20181212202504.4n3mhtx7grbeh6j7@squirrel.exwg.net> <20181214012733.GA92808@www.zefox.net> <20181218174903.GA41072@www.zefox.net> <20190101182153.GA13944@www.zefox.net> <66584297-22E7-4D94-963A-5FD4D9130686@yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <66584297-22E7-4D94-963A-5FD4D9130686@yahoo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: C80256A22D X-Spamd-Bar: ++++ Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org X-Spamd-Result: default: False [4.77 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; WWW_DOT_DOMAIN(0.50)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[zefox.net]; AUTH_NA(1.00)[]; NEURAL_SPAM_MEDIUM(0.71)[0.709,0]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_SPAM_SHORT(0.26)[0.257,0]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[cached: www.zefox.net]; NEURAL_SPAM_LONG(0.69)[0.686,0]; IP_SCORE(0.22)[ip: (0.79), ipnet: 50.1.16.0/20(0.39), asn: 7065(0.02), country: US(-0.08)]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[]; FREEMAIL_TO(0.00)[yahoo.com]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:7065, ipnet:50.1.16.0/20, country:US]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; MID_RHS_WWW(0.50)[] X-BeenThere: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Porting FreeBSD to ARM processors." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2019 00:03:58 -0000 On Tue, Jan 01, 2019 at 03:14:26PM -0800, Mark Millard wrote: > > > On 2019-Jan-1, at 10:21, bob prohaska wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 09:49:03AM -0800, bob prohaska wrote: > > > > > > As a further test, I'ved added two additional USB flash swap devices and am re-running > > the compilation of www/chromium. The swap layout is quite lopsided, with the USB flash > > devices having only 2 GB swap partitions on each, contrasting to the 4 GB swap partitions > > on the microSD card and mechanical disk. > > > > The first oddity is that top doesn't seem to see the extra swap space, reporting only > > 7192M total. > > If you start top before changing the swap space (swapon or > swapoff), top does not change to match: it does not monitor > the swap space total size over time. But I've no other clue > to the ordering that actually occurred. > In fact I made that mistake so I quit and restarted top. The incorrect swap total number persisted. After a fashion the number makes some sense: The small swap partitions are 2 GB, if the swap is used uniformly the total would be 8 GB. 7192 MB is less wrong than the ~13GB reported by swapinfo. > > You might want to report the types/models of the USB flash devices that > were in used. Also relevant is the past usage pattern and amount of > prior use on the USB flash devices. > > The flash devices are the same Sandisk Extreme "thumb drives" used in earlier swap experiments with buildworld. One is model SDCZ80-064, the other SDCZ800-064. The former is rated USB3.0, the latter USB3.1. They're certainly not new, but neither are they obviously broken (yet). Thanks for reading! bob prohaska