From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Pia3h-000745-I2 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 22:11:18 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C9238E0592; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 22:08:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-bw0-f53.google.com (mail-bw0-f53.google.com [209.85.214.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F5A7E0592 for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 22:08:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bwg12 with SMTP id 12so4307184bwg.40 for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 14:08:58 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=JpIgI68dPs19pyg4OkdNGytnwJCA81Qp2XwbE1exbzM=; b=lRAbDPEr/yQdnfYry48HiSPfhvmT8avNAHRrBeXKWWrA6q3g1LNx5K2e7sqUhGAoSE 8xRpvPZHdAoQSl6AlztxWSuz8sQ3YtLBIF5WZFI438WdRP946uIschdW4eYcaarjFKHI pJE9TTcF37hk03e93Lj+5tYivRVrwcxCtobOA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=ohVRDZeanz6JcqXM5o9kBXIkXM5FQgy4J/REhupP7LXLLI6miFuSCoNec0sIIQCAuv 3HbVbObakxwbt05jwAcrqHoAqsVK+gJYcvShJuAU4t2UlLowfHwDLRc7U/AvAXPGSrsR 41Aeskxpjx5ajPUp8TcNKoswZMQvC/ivjDAE4= Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.57.197 with SMTP id d5mr1819319bkh.63.1296165922584; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 14:05:22 -0800 (PST) Sender: paul.hartman@gmail.com Received: by 10.204.18.197 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 14:05:22 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <201101272246.18100.joost@antarean.org> References: <201101272246.18100.joost@antarean.org> Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 16:05:22 -0600 X-Google-Sender-Auth: THcYf0RunxtXtH3EBjt0MV9jdIw Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Simultaneously emerging multiple packages with same dependencies From: Paul Hartman To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 25e030706f9391931b78e8bccbc2ebcc On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 3:46 PM, J. Roeleveld wrote: > On Thursday 27 January 2011 21:25:02 Paul Hartman wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Nikos Chantziaras wro= te: >> > On 01/27/2011 09:41 PM, Dale wrote: >> >> YoYo Siska wrote: >> >>> Yes. >> >>> It might not be perfect, but mostly it works pretty well. >> >>> Once make started 10 or so process, which ate all my ram, because I >> >>> forgot to reenable swap, when I was playing with something before th= at >> >>> >> >>> :) >> >>> >> >>> yoyo >> >> >> >> I noticed the same thing with mine. It used a LOT of ram. I have 4Gbs >> >> and it was up to about 3Gbs at one point and using some swap as well. >> >> I'm hoping to max out to 16Gbs as soon as I can. May upgrade to a 6 c= ore >> >> CPU too. >> >> >> >> I wonder how much faster it would be if the work directory is put on >> >> tmpfs? With 16Gbs, that should work even for OOo. >> > >> > Btw, if you're using more instances than the amount of CPUs, the resul= t >> > will be slow-down. >> > >> > With the default kernel scheduler, best if amount of CPUs + 1. =A0(On = a >> > 4-core, that's -j5). >> >> Once, when building my kernel, I accidentally forgot to specify the >> number of makes and ran "make -j all". That was a really bad idea, the >> system became totally unresponsive for quite a long time, much longer >> than normal kernel build time, but it did eventually finish! > > I have found that multi-core systems with sufficient memory can handle "-= j" > (no value) a lot better then sindle-core systems. I do on occasion do it = with > the kernel and can still continue using the system. (For comparison, my > desktop is a 4-core AMD64 with 8GB memory) Strange, in my case it was an i7 920 (4 cores, hyperthreaded, appears as 8 CPUs to Linux) with 12GB of RAM. Maybe if I prefixed it with"nice" it would not have brought my computer to its knees... or maybe related to the schedulers and other kernel voodoo that I don't understand. I might try it again someday :)