1 |
lee <lee@××××××××.de> wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> Hi, |
4 |
> |
5 |
> what's taking so long when emerging packages despite distcc is used? |
6 |
> |
7 |
> I have disallowed compiling on the local machine (which is the one |
8 |
> emerge is running on) through distcc settings because the local |
9 |
> machine is relatively slow. Yet I can see some gcc processes running |
10 |
> on the local machine, and emerging goes painfully slow. Using distcc |
11 |
> doesn't seem to make it any faster, though disabling local compiling |
12 |
> seems to help a bit. |
13 |
> |
14 |
> Some compilations are being run on the remote machine, so distcc does |
15 |
> work. The log file on the remote machine shows compilation times of a |
16 |
> few milliseconds up to about 1.5 seconds at most. The distcc server |
17 |
> would be finished with the emerging within maybe 15 minutes, and the |
18 |
> client takes several hours already. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> Is there something going wrong? Is there a way to speed things up as |
21 |
> much as I would expect from using distcc? |
22 |
|
23 |
You can try pump mode. Preprocessing is then done on the remote server. |
24 |
Depending on your hardware, this could be faster. |
25 |
|
26 |
But read carefully the manpages of pump and distcc before you use it. |
27 |
There are some restrictions you should be aware of. |
28 |
|
29 |
You can also try to optimize the number of concurrent compile processes |
30 |
(-j). Watching the load counts of your client and server(s) will help |
31 |
you to find out the best value. |
32 |
|
33 |
-- |
34 |
Regards |
35 |
wabe |