From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 13 12:30:08 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90EEF1065672 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 12:30:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from Luca.Presotto@cern.ch) Received: from cernmxlb.cern.ch (cernmx07.cern.ch [137.138.166.171]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A1C08FC1E for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 12:30:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from Luca.Presotto@cern.ch) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; s=beta; d=cern.ch; q=dns; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=Vj61YmFruO0ULG8iiR6CAP8wrde3owdN8YqDQiRgOj4kWaFor7wjC31yVWxygyeQnFrbDHTR6F8vCgCtVKTLWvIQ7qIKbzteZI+QSS9OJT1ACee4BubjJ2oclQa68wra; Keywords: CERN SpamKiller Note: -49 Charset: west-latin X-Filter: CERNMX07 CERN MX v2.0 060921.0942 Release Received: from cernxchg50.cern.ch ([137.138.137.175]) by cernmxlb.cern.ch with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:30:06 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:30:05 +0100 Message-ID: <9A6A62B6B84859469F3EBB5F09D818CA219E9B@cernxchg50.cern.ch> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Tuning make.conf Thread-Index: AciFAiLFlFlgCy9SQYKEsGBT+aukYgAAlEkq References: <47D9004D.5070407@planet.nl> <9A6A62B6B84859469F3EBB5F09D818CA219E98@cernxchg50.cern.ch> <87F851FC-750A-478F-BD01-1B7FED69BF7A@gmail.com> From: "Luca Presotto" To: "Julius Huang" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Mar 2008 12:30:06.0247 (UTC) FILETIME=[F8050B70:01C88505] Cc: marcin.koziuk@planet.nl, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Tuning make.conf X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 12:30:08 -0000 >Isn't -j depend on how many cpu/core and a faster harddisk / raid? Yes, it is. But with j1 you have only one job running at a time. On a = dual core you can really easily running at least two jobs at the same = time. Then I've read a number of ideas about which is the relation between the = number of cores and the optimal number of jobs. I have been suggested something between n+1 and 2n+1 Of course the optimal number of jobs depends on the disk speed and = similar. But switching between 1 and 3 gives something like halving the time = needed to compile everything. Maybe it's possible that when building the kernel it gives some problem, = but I'm thinking about compiling ports. Or does portupgrade automatically chooses which -j to use?