| 1 |
lee <lee@××××××××.de> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Hi, |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> what's taking so long when emerging packages despite distcc is used? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I have disallowed compiling on the local machine (which is the one |
| 8 |
> emerge is running on) through distcc settings because the local |
| 9 |
> machine is relatively slow. Yet I can see some gcc processes running |
| 10 |
> on the local machine, and emerging goes painfully slow. Using distcc |
| 11 |
> doesn't seem to make it any faster, though disabling local compiling |
| 12 |
> seems to help a bit. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Some compilations are being run on the remote machine, so distcc does |
| 15 |
> work. The log file on the remote machine shows compilation times of a |
| 16 |
> few milliseconds up to about 1.5 seconds at most. The distcc server |
| 17 |
> would be finished with the emerging within maybe 15 minutes, and the |
| 18 |
> client takes several hours already. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Is there something going wrong? Is there a way to speed things up as |
| 21 |
> much as I would expect from using distcc? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
You can try pump mode. Preprocessing is then done on the remote server. |
| 24 |
Depending on your hardware, this could be faster. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
But read carefully the manpages of pump and distcc before you use it. |
| 27 |
There are some restrictions you should be aware of. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
You can also try to optimize the number of concurrent compile processes |
| 30 |
(-j). Watching the load counts of your client and server(s) will help |
| 31 |
you to find out the best value. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Regards |
| 35 |
wabe |
Archives