My New Machine vs VS 2010
-
I have a new 64 bit quad-core machine waiting for Win7. Any tips for setting it up so compiling on VS 2010 doesn't kill the whole machine? I thought I'd start with 3 cores max. for compiling, with all my sources on a separate (physical) disk to the rest of my system. All SATA drives presumably share the same IO bandwidth? So will putting stuff on a separate disk actually help?
-
I have a new 64 bit quad-core machine waiting for Win7. Any tips for setting it up so compiling on VS 2010 doesn't kill the whole machine? I thought I'd start with 3 cores max. for compiling, with all my sources on a separate (physical) disk to the rest of my system. All SATA drives presumably share the same IO bandwidth? So will putting stuff on a separate disk actually help?
No no and no. Get a SSD. All that helps.
-
I have a new 64 bit quad-core machine waiting for Win7. Any tips for setting it up so compiling on VS 2010 doesn't kill the whole machine? I thought I'd start with 3 cores max. for compiling, with all my sources on a separate (physical) disk to the rest of my system. All SATA drives presumably share the same IO bandwidth? So will putting stuff on a separate disk actually help?
There's a setting for that? Whodathunkit? Mine runs great using the default Windows installation - no bogging down or unreasonable delays, other than the usual lag time to load VS2010.
Will Rogers never met me.
-
I have a new 64 bit quad-core machine waiting for Win7. Any tips for setting it up so compiling on VS 2010 doesn't kill the whole machine? I thought I'd start with 3 cores max. for compiling, with all my sources on a separate (physical) disk to the rest of my system. All SATA drives presumably share the same IO bandwidth? So will putting stuff on a separate disk actually help?
Your problem is not Visual Studio, if compiling "kills" the machine.
-
I have a new 64 bit quad-core machine waiting for Win7. Any tips for setting it up so compiling on VS 2010 doesn't kill the whole machine? I thought I'd start with 3 cores max. for compiling, with all my sources on a separate (physical) disk to the rest of my system. All SATA drives presumably share the same IO bandwidth? So will putting stuff on a separate disk actually help?
I'm not working with VS2010 - but this sounds like rocket science :wtf: I would actually presume that a MS product works fine on Win7.
regards Torsten When I'm not working
-
I have a new 64 bit quad-core machine waiting for Win7. Any tips for setting it up so compiling on VS 2010 doesn't kill the whole machine? I thought I'd start with 3 cores max. for compiling, with all my sources on a separate (physical) disk to the rest of my system. All SATA drives presumably share the same IO bandwidth? So will putting stuff on a separate disk actually help?
Kyudos wrote:
I have a new 64 bit quad-core machine waiting for Win7. Any tips for setting it up so compiling on VS 2010 doesn't kill the whole machine?
AFAIK Visual Studio only uses one thread for the build action, so it doesn't make much difference how many cores you have.
-
No no and no. Get a SSD. All that helps.
I use another kind of software that doesn't run on 64-bit System, and the hardware on the company Laptop does not allow win Xp anymore, so I have to work on SSD. With 4 Gb Ram and the SSD I run every software packet 1,5 to 2 times faster that coworkers running the VM in usual HD with 8 Gb ram and better processors. Only shame... capacity is quite reduced (or expensive), 2 VMs and Win7-64 bit = 70% of the SSD But I love the SSD though.
Regards. -------- M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpfull answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
I have a new 64 bit quad-core machine waiting for Win7. Any tips for setting it up so compiling on VS 2010 doesn't kill the whole machine? I thought I'd start with 3 cores max. for compiling, with all my sources on a separate (physical) disk to the rest of my system. All SATA drives presumably share the same IO bandwidth? So will putting stuff on a separate disk actually help?
Brand new 64bit i7 2600K processor with 8GB ram and a 5400RPM 1TB disk with an Asus board... at home. A dell optiplex 790 64bit (i5 2500) processor at work. Home compilation of the same project 2 minutes... Work... 10. No cores when excluded in this compilation. What you need to understand is that VS2010 is x86 which means extra memory won't matter.. it uses one thread for compilation so you may assume it uses one core. hence disk partitioning, speed and fragmentation counts. Probably your new toy will rip a new one on VS2010 :laugh:
Alberto Bar-Noy --------------- “The city’s central computer told you? R2D2, you know better than to trust a strange computer!” (C3PO)
-
No no and no. Get a SSD. All that helps.
Not sure why, but a SSD didn't do much of a dent on my desk system (quad intel i-something, Win7 x64 8G, build on separate WD velociraptor drive). scraped off about 2 minutes from a 16-minute build. On a similar machine with 10% less CPU clock and Win7 x86, it dos do a bit better - but the build times on that machine are about twice of mine.
FILETIME to time_t
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchy -
Kyudos wrote:
I have a new 64 bit quad-core machine waiting for Win7. Any tips for setting it up so compiling on VS 2010 doesn't kill the whole machine?
AFAIK Visual Studio only uses one thread for the build action, so it doesn't make much difference how many cores you have.
I assumed that Options|Projects and Solutions|Build and Run|Maximum Number of Parallel Project Builds would build parallel build using a core per project. Is that not the case? (or perhaps a thread per project, with appropriate thread distribution over available cores?)