| 1 |
2011/12/22 Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 11:43 PM, Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> I looked into this 6 or 7 years ago. It wasn't feasible unless you were |
| 4 |
>> on an extremely high-speed, low-latency network, beyond what was |
| 5 |
>> typically accessible at the time outside of universities and LANs. Could |
| 6 |
>> be worth exploring again now that 25-100 mbps connections are becoming |
| 7 |
>> more common. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I tried messing around with this with Amazon EC2. The problem was |
| 10 |
> that due to latency I only really saw the benefit for VERY high levels |
| 11 |
> of parallelization (think -j25+).. However, make isn't actually |
| 12 |
> "distcc-aware" so it just runs 25 jobs of anything in parallel. So, |
| 13 |
> anytime a makefile launched a ton of java or python jobs the host |
| 14 |
> ground to a halt as it wasn't distributed and it was way more than the |
| 15 |
> host could handle (especially java - which swapped like there was no |
| 16 |
> tomorrow). |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> If somebody were to do a distcc-ng for a large cluster one of the |
| 19 |
> problems to solve would be having it not run jobs in parallel if it |
| 20 |
> couldn't actually distribute them. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Rich |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Just wanted to point out that (if there is enough memory) recent |
| 26 |
kernels manage much better parallelism, even excess of it, once |
| 27 |
reached the maximum load augmenting threads only bring minimal loss of |
| 28 |
"real" time. |
Archives