On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Nikos Chantziaras <rea...@arcor.de> wrote: > On 01/27/2011 09:41 PM, Dale wrote: >> >> YoYo Siska wrote: >>> >>> Yes. >>> It might not be perfect, but mostly it works pretty well. >>> Once make started 10 or so process, which ate all my ram, because I >>> forgot to reenable swap, when I was playing with something before that >>> :) >>> >>> yoyo >> >> I noticed the same thing with mine. It used a LOT of ram. I have 4Gbs >> and it was up to about 3Gbs at one point and using some swap as well. >> I'm hoping to max out to 16Gbs as soon as I can. May upgrade to a 6 core >> CPU too. >> >> I wonder how much faster it would be if the work directory is put on >> tmpfs? With 16Gbs, that should work even for OOo. >> > > Btw, if you're using more instances than the amount of CPUs, the result will > be slow-down. > > With the default kernel scheduler, best if amount of CPUs + 1. (On a > 4-core, that's -j5).
Once, when building my kernel, I accidentally forgot to specify the number of makes and ran "make -j all". That was a really bad idea, the system became totally unresponsive for quite a long time, much longer than normal kernel build time, but it did eventually finish!
