Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 09:35:10 +0200 From: Peter Much <pmc@citylink.dinoex.sub.org> To: freebsd-openoffice@freebsd.org Subject: ports/135262 (MAKE_JOBS): this was done wrongly Message-ID: <20090811073509.GB40425@gate.oper.dinoex.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Well, to put it short: the number of simultaneously running tasks is now the SQUARE of installed CPUs. :/ Shouldn't do any harm as long as you don't run out of paging space... The more severe issue is, parallel build does not always work. :( Lets have a look at it: That build command offers TWO options "-P". One of them decides how many "Modules" are built in parallel, and the other decides how many Processes are run simultaneously (seemingly *within* one "Module's" build). With 3.0.1 I noticed that when parallelizing Processes, the build would fail, but when parallelizing Modules, it did work. (I didn't investigate further.) With the Makefile as it is now, the build does fail again. This time i saved the logfile, and it shows: >dmake: Error: -- `../unxfbsdi.pro/slb/security.lib' not found, and can't be made And then, a couple of lines *LATER*(!): >echo unxfbsdi.pro/slo/permissions.o unxfbsdi.pro/slo/access_controller.o unxfbsdi.pro/slo/file_policy.o | xargs -n1 > ../../unxfbsdi.pro/slb/security.lib >making .dpslo >Making: ../../unxfbsdi.pro/slb/security.lib This is NOT reproducible and did NOT happen at the next run. It is quite likely a timing issue, dependent on machine load or whatever. (At that next time the sequence of actions in the log was appropriate.) So I cannot say if parallelizing Modules would be more safe than parallelizing processes, or vice versa. I suggest people should experiment with this. Fact is that the parallelization is not very failsafe.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090811073509.GB40425>