From owner-freebsd-smp Tue Sep 28 19:10:14 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from pop3-3.enteract.com (pop3-3.enteract.com [207.229.143.32]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1C13B1587E for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 19:10:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dscheidt@enteract.com) Received: (qmail 80510 invoked from network); 29 Sep 1999 02:10:09 -0000 Received: from shell-1.enteract.com (dscheidt@207.229.143.40) by pop3-3.enteract.com with SMTP; 29 Sep 1999 02:10:09 -0000 Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 21:10:09 -0500 (CDT) From: David Scheidt To: "Adam D. Marks" Cc: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: make question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Adam D. Marks wrote: > Now I was told when running make to use the -j option. But I have tried > numbers from 1 to 20 it seems the larger the number the faster it gets. Is > there a convention I should be following to utilize the smp in compiles? The -j option controlls the maximium number of jobs that make will spawn. If you don't supply one, it does every thing serially, and you won't benefit from the second CPU. The point at which you see the biggest benefit will depend on what the limit on performance is. In my machine, the limit is almost always disk performance. David Scheidt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message