Dan Eble <d...@faithful.be> writes: > On Feb 23, 2020, at 06:08, Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanw...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I think we should do both: the lilypond runs in lp-book should be >> protected by some sort of lock, and we should use both CPU_COUNT=M and >> -jN. >> >> then worst case, you have M lilypond processes and N-1 other jobs. > > What would you recommend to a developer who doesn't want to run more > than J = M + N - 1 concurrent jobs due to lilypond development? What > values of M and N would serve best? > > On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 12:00 PM <d...@gnu.org> wrote: >> So wouldn't it appear that the way to exploit parallelism with >> lilypond-book, short of writing its own jobserver, is to use CPU_COUNT >> like we did before? > > Making lilypond-book a client of the GNU make job server sounds like an > option. > > "Sharing Job Slots with GNU make" > https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/Job-Slots.html
But that still doesn't solve the problem that the database approach of lilypond-book does not work for running multiple lilypond-book jobs in parallel. -- David Kastrup
