Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| Linking time sanjay_jha@email.msn.com (Sanjay Jha) (1999-04-18) |
| Re: Linking time dwight@pentasoft.com (1999-04-19) |
| Re: Linking time mikey@sparcbert.mlee.ontek.com (1999-04-20) |
| Re: Linking time zalman@netcom.com (1999-04-21) |
| Re: Linking time gopi@sankhya.com (1999-04-21) |
| From: | zalman@netcom.com (Zalman Stern) |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | 21 Apr 1999 01:39:28 -0400 |
| Organization: | ICGNetcom |
| References: | 99-04-052 99-04-073 |
| Keywords: | performance |
Mike Lee (mikey@sparcbert.mlee.ontek.com) wrote:
: I don't suppose there is some equivalent to the unix time(1) command
: available? Anyway, I'm not sure this line of investigation leads
: anywhere but to purchasing faster hardware. The next release
: of the library will be probably be sized on the assumption of
: these upgrades and you'll be back where you started.
You can fire up the NT performance monitor and get an incredible array
of pretty graphs that are actually useful. My only complaint with it
is you have to do some tweak to get the kernel to accumulate disk
performance stats (to avoid the performance hit when you are using
this). And of course the performance monitor doesn't say anything
about this, it just shows flatlined graphs...
My first question would be how much RAM is in the box? Linkers respond
well to physical memory in my experience.
-Z-
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.