| 1 |
On 01/27/2011 09:41 PM, Dale wrote: |
| 2 |
> YoYo Siska wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Yes. |
| 4 |
>> It might not be perfect, but mostly it works pretty well. |
| 5 |
>> Once make started 10 or so process, which ate all my ram, because I |
| 6 |
>> forgot to reenable swap, when I was playing with something before that |
| 7 |
>> :) |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> yoyo |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> I noticed the same thing with mine. It used a LOT of ram. I have 4Gbs |
| 12 |
> and it was up to about 3Gbs at one point and using some swap as well. |
| 13 |
> I'm hoping to max out to 16Gbs as soon as I can. May upgrade to a 6 core |
| 14 |
> CPU too. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> I wonder how much faster it would be if the work directory is put on |
| 17 |
> tmpfs? With 16Gbs, that should work even for OOo. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Btw, if you're using more instances than the amount of CPUs, the result |
| 21 |
will be slow-down. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
With the default kernel scheduler, best if amount of CPUs + 1. (On a |
| 24 |
4-core, that's -j5). |
Archives