Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2022 21:13:36 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: toolchain@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 264949] lang/gcc11: Needs build time warning for /tmp consumption Message-ID: <bug-264949-29464-xeWDozHsKL@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-264949-29464@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-264949-29464@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D264949 --- Comment #23 from Mark Millard <marklmi26-fbsd@yahoo.com> --- (In reply to Lorenzo Salvadore from comment #16) FYI: a beefy18 main-amd64 build started and it actually uses 13 builders. See: http://beefy18.nyi.freebsd.org/build.html?mastername=3Dmain-amd64-default&b= uild=3Dp4cf95047288c_s836d47d38e It was showing a load average of around 24.4 (at 51%) when I looked. So it appears to have 48 FreeBSD "cpus" (24 hyperthreaded cores?) And 24.4 with MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER=3D2 per builder means around 12 or 13 builders active if nearly all are using 2 active processes via make. (Some ports only use 1.) That matches up with the list of 13 that is shown. So the load average is only about half of the FreeBSD "cpu" count. Not a bias to minimizing time-to-completion. (But some ports do not respect MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER=3D2 in their load average contribution, so at times more than half may be in use.) With the configuration avoiding load averages that are larger than the FreeBSD "cpu" count, the port build times are closer to being independent, more like they would be if built separately. Thus comparing individual port-build times with other configurations that do similarly is useful. (But usefully comparing to a high load average configuration [from lack of such use of MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER] would be much messier.) --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-264949-29464-xeWDozHsKL>