Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 29 Sep 1999 12:09:16 +0930 (CST)
From:      "Daniel O'Connor" <doconnor@gsoft.com.au>
To:        David Scheidt <dscheidt@enteract.com>
Cc:        freebsd-smp@freebsd.org, "Adam D. Marks" <amarks@ecst.csuchico.edu>
Subject:   Re: make question
Message-ID:  <XFMail.990929120916.doconnor@gsoft.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96.990928210159.1170A-100000@shell-1.enteract.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

On 29-Sep-99 David Scheidt wrote:
>  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.  

Well I did some benchmarks of doing make buildworld for -current on a -current
box. 

I went from 1 to 20 in steps of 2. From memory the best resulsts where about -j
12, but that ate a LOT of memory :)

If you actually want to use your computer while doing a compile then -j 4 is
probably OK.

The system I did it on was a dual PII-350 with an IDE disk and 128 meg of RAM.

---
Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer
for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au
"The nice thing about standards is that there
are so many of them to choose from."
  -- Andrew Tanenbaum


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.990929120916.doconnor>