| 1 |
On Thursday 27 January 2011 21:25:02 Paul Hartman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@×××××.de> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On 01/27/2011 09:41 PM, Dale wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> YoYo Siska wrote: |
| 5 |
> >>> Yes. |
| 6 |
> >>> It might not be perfect, but mostly it works pretty well. |
| 7 |
> >>> Once make started 10 or so process, which ate all my ram, because I |
| 8 |
> >>> forgot to reenable swap, when I was playing with something before that |
| 9 |
> >>> |
| 10 |
> >>> :) |
| 11 |
> >>> |
| 12 |
> >>> yoyo |
| 13 |
> >> |
| 14 |
> >> I noticed the same thing with mine. It used a LOT of ram. I have 4Gbs |
| 15 |
> >> and it was up to about 3Gbs at one point and using some swap as well. |
| 16 |
> >> I'm hoping to max out to 16Gbs as soon as I can. May upgrade to a 6 core |
| 17 |
> >> CPU too. |
| 18 |
> >> |
| 19 |
> >> I wonder how much faster it would be if the work directory is put on |
| 20 |
> >> tmpfs? With 16Gbs, that should work even for OOo. |
| 21 |
> > |
| 22 |
> > Btw, if you're using more instances than the amount of CPUs, the result |
| 23 |
> > will be slow-down. |
| 24 |
> > |
| 25 |
> > With the default kernel scheduler, best if amount of CPUs + 1. (On a |
| 26 |
> > 4-core, that's -j5). |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Once, when building my kernel, I accidentally forgot to specify the |
| 29 |
> number of makes and ran "make -j all". That was a really bad idea, the |
| 30 |
> system became totally unresponsive for quite a long time, much longer |
| 31 |
> than normal kernel build time, but it did eventually finish! |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
I have found that multi-core systems with sufficient memory can handle "-j" |
| 34 |
(no value) a lot better then sindle-core systems. I do on occasion do it with |
| 35 |
the kernel and can still continue using the system. (For comparison, my |
| 36 |
desktop is a 4-core AMD64 with 8GB memory) |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
Joost |
Archives