Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:41:15 -0600 From: Coleman Kane <cokane@cokane.org> To: Benjamin Lutz <mail@maxlor.com> Cc: Garrett Cooper <youshi10@u.washington.edu>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: parallel builds revisited Message-ID: <1176410475.1728.15.camel@localhost> In-Reply-To: <200704122108.01376.mail@maxlor.com> References: <200704100452.40574.mail@maxlor.com> <1176363454.72184.2.camel@pav.hide.vol.cz> <461DF6A3.9030201@u.washington.edu> <200704122108.01376.mail@maxlor.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 21:07 +0200, Benjamin Lutz wrote: > On Thursday 12 April 2007 11:06, Garrett Cooper wrote: > > I dunno how you want to approach this, but gmake does recommend 2 > > jobs be run in parallel for HTT enabled chips, and 3 or 4 jobs for a > > dual core machines. > > -Garrett > > So far the approach is one job per CPU. I'll do some benchmarks lateron > to determine wether it really helps to run more jobs. For the KDE > ports, my gut feeling is that the improvement would be negligible. I'll > have to evaluate non-C++ ports like gnome-*, where the compilation time > per file is shorter. > > Of course, to make proper use of distcc, at least #cores + 1 jobs are > required. I'll keep that in mind. > > Cheers > Benjamin I have always seen that NCPUS+1 was a good heuristic. -- Coleman Kane
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1176410475.1728.15.camel>