On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 3:46 PM, J. Roeleveld <jo...@antarean.org> wrote: > On Thursday 27 January 2011 21:25:02 Paul Hartman wrote: >> 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! > > I have found that multi-core systems with sufficient memory can handle "-j" > (no value) a lot better then sindle-core systems. I do on occasion do it with > the kernel and can still continue using the system. (For comparison, my > desktop is a 4-core AMD64 with 8GB memory)
Strange, in my case it was an i7 920 (4 cores, hyperthreaded, appears as 8 CPUs to Linux) with 12GB of RAM. Maybe if I prefixed it with"nice" it would not have brought my computer to its knees... or maybe related to the schedulers and other kernel voodoo that I don't understand. I might try it again someday :)
