3 ms·
In my totally unscientific (but consistent) benchmarks for our CI build servers, m6g.8xlarge compile our c++ codebase in about 9.5 minutes, where m6a.8xlarge ta
by stingraycharles 4y ago
In my totally unscientific (but consistent) benchmarks for our CI build servers, m6g.8xlarge compile our c++ codebase in about 9.5 minutes, where m6a.8xlarge takes about 11 minutes. The price difference is about 20% as well iirc, so it’s generally a good deal.
Of course the types of optimisations that a compiler may (or may not) do on aarch64 vs x86_64 are completely different and may explain the difference (we actually compile with -march=haswell for x86_64), but generally Graviton seems like a really good deal.
- foota 4y agoYou're probably leaving a lot of performance on the floor if you're building for haskell and running on skylakeish or newer. Edit: yes, haswell:-)
- nickpeterson 4y ago*haswell, in case the Haskell people come after you.
- paulddraper 4y agoAh, that makes more sense.
- speed_spread 4y ago"don't poke the endofunctor"
- stingraycharles 4y agoYeah we know, it’s just that we ship these binaries to customers and need a reasonably old architecture that we know “almost everyone” uses.
- Aeolun 4y agoWhy not use the c type instances? Is the compilation memory bound? I’d expect it to be the cpu that’s the limiting factor.
- stingraycharles 4y agoHeavy C++ template metaprogramming, we need up to 4GB of memory per process in some situations.