http://www.conifersystems.com/2008/09/16/cfs-build-performance/ Sun, 05 Feb 2012 09:56:55 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 http://www.conifersystems.com/2008/09/16/cfs-build-performance/#comment-5 Matt Mon, 22 Sep 2008 07:44:45 +0000 http://www.conifersystems.com/?p=42#comment-5 A valid concern. Of course, we have to compare apples to apples: if you count the time to service cache misses with CFS, then you also have to count the time to check out or update your tree without CFS. That's a more complex issue; I'm just trying to clarify that CFS (by itself) does not impose a significant performance hit. A valid concern. Of course, we have to compare apples to apples: if you count the time to service cache misses with CFS, then you also have to count the time to check out or update your tree without CFS. That’s a more complex issue; I’m just trying to clarify that CFS (by itself) does not impose a significant performance hit.

]]> http://www.conifersystems.com/2008/09/16/cfs-build-performance/#comment-4 Nick Carter Sat, 20 Sep 2008 17:49:59 +0000 http://www.conifersystems.com/?p=42#comment-4 I understand the desire to reduce measurement variability by doing only warm runs, but is a fully populated cache the situation that most users will find themselves in? I understand the desire to reduce measurement variability by doing only warm runs, but is a fully populated cache the situation that most users will find themselves in?

]]>