Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 14:46:17 -0500 From: "Nikolas Britton" <nikolas.britton@gmail.com> To: "Kent Stewart" <kstewart@owt.com> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD and "make -j# buildworld" usability Message-ID: <ef10de9a0610161246w25652bb7ra198db6eecd25d02@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200610131347.41023.kstewart@owt.com> References: <20061013143130.GW491@dev.null.cz> <200610131347.41023.kstewart@owt.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 10/13/06, Kent Stewart <kstewart@owt.com> wrote: > On Friday 13 October 2006 07:31, Buki wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I searched the archives and web a little but found many different > > opinions on stability/usability of using make -j# with buildworld > > (and buildkernel). > > > > So I am asking if it is a good idea to use make -j on production > > boxes. > > > > I tested buildworlds with different values for -j. On single processors, > using a script that basically looked like > > time make -j? ... > > yielded fastest builds when I didn't specify a value for -j. On dual > cpu's a value around -j8 yielded the fastest build. That's odd, your results don't jive with this: http://people.freebsd.org/~fsmp/SMP/akgraph-a/graph1.html Although that report is quite old... My general rule of thumb for -j is n +1, where n equals the total number of cpu cores. This is generally enough to keep to processor(s) occupied without over stressing the system. Maybe n * 2 is more appropriate, can you post the results from your test?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?ef10de9a0610161246w25652bb7ra198db6eecd25d02>