| 1 |
On Thursday 27 January 2011 23:53:04 Dale wrote: |
| 2 |
> Nikos Chantziaras wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On 01/27/2011 09:41 PM, Dale wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> I noticed the same thing with mine. It used a LOT of ram. I have 4Gbs |
| 5 |
> >> and it was up to about 3Gbs at one point and using some swap as well. |
| 6 |
> >> I'm hoping to max out to 16Gbs as soon as I can. May upgrade to a 6 core |
| 7 |
> >> CPU too. |
| 8 |
> >> |
| 9 |
> >> I wonder how much faster it would be if the work directory is put on |
| 10 |
> >> tmpfs? With 16Gbs, that should work even for OOo. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > Btw, if you're using more instances than the amount of CPUs, the |
| 13 |
> > result will be slow-down. |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > With the default kernel scheduler, best if amount of CPUs + 1. (On a |
| 16 |
> > 4-core, that's -j5). |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> I just used -j with no number. It worked fine and I played Solitaire |
| 19 |
> and checked my email while it was running. The only thing I noticed was |
| 20 |
> it using swap. That could slow things down but otherwise, it worked fine. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> I do have the nice and ionice settings in make.conf tho. That helps a |
| 23 |
> lot for sure. Without those, it would likely slow down a lot. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Which settings do you use for that? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Joost |
Archives