From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Feb 13 11:17:40 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from dayspring.firedrake.org (dayspring.firedrake.org [195.82.105.251]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2024737B503 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 11:17:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from float by dayspring.firedrake.org with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 14Skwd-0004Bl-00; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 19:16:59 +0000 Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 19:16:59 +0000 To: Jordan Hubbard Cc: kstewart@urx.com, Danny Braniss , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: soft updates performance Message-ID: <20010213191659.A5429@firedrake.org> References: <81045.982046200@winston.osd.bsdi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <81045.982046200@winston.osd.bsdi.com>; from jkh@winston.osd.bsdi.com on Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 10:36:40PM -0800 From: void Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 10:36:40PM -0800, Jordan Hubbard wrote: > > With how many running processors? If you're running -j4 on a > uniprocessor system, you're only introducing competition for already > scarce CPU resources, though -j2 can be a speedup since this allows > one target build to run while another is in an I/O wait. I've only > seen a speedup with -j4 when using at least 2 CPUs. Interesting. When I asked about optimal values on this list maybe a year ago, I was told that -j(4 * NCPU) was a good choice. I guess that doesn't work for NCPU == 1. -- Ben "I told Paddy no, I told Steve no, I told Paul no, and Ben fell asleep." --Kate C. (no, different Ben, I would have stayed up) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message