| 1 |
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@×××××.de> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 01/27/2011 09:41 PM, Dale wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> YoYo Siska wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> |
| 6 |
>>> Yes. |
| 7 |
>>> It might not be perfect, but mostly it works pretty well. |
| 8 |
>>> Once make started 10 or so process, which ate all my ram, because I |
| 9 |
>>> forgot to reenable swap, when I was playing with something before that |
| 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 |
> |
| 23 |
> Btw, if you're using more instances than the amount of CPUs, the result will |
| 24 |
> be slow-down. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> With the default kernel scheduler, best if amount of CPUs + 1. (On a |
| 27 |
> 4-core, that's -j5). |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Once, when building my kernel, I accidentally forgot to specify the |
| 30 |
number of makes and ran "make -j all". That was a really bad idea, the |
| 31 |
system became totally unresponsive for quite a long time, much longer |
| 32 |
than normal kernel build time, but it did eventually finish! |
Archives