| 1 |
On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 12:04 PM, Mick <michaelkintzios@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On my old i7 laptop it eats up all 4G of RAM and 4G of swap before it conks |
| 4 |
> out. So, I dropped the jobs to 3 and --load-average to 2, added a swapfile to |
| 5 |
> increase disk space and it now builds in around 13 hours. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I have not used jumbo-build, but perhaps I should? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Well, you can certainly try, but since jumbo-build increases memory |
| 10 |
use, I suspect you might not be able to get it to complete at all even |
| 11 |
with -j1. If it did build there is a good chance it would complete |
| 12 |
faster, even using fewer cores. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I'm not sure how exactly jumbo-build combines source files. Hopefully |
| 15 |
it does it in a way that is consistent each time, so that ccache has |
| 16 |
some chance of getting hits between builds. That would actually be an |
| 17 |
advantage to compiling with many smaller units - you might get more |
| 18 |
cache hits. That is, assuming there aren't header changes in new |
| 19 |
releases that invalidate large number of cache entries. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Rich |
Archives