Re: -j/-l : minimum of jobs running under max-load with auto = cpu+1 default

2018-05-21 Thread Garreau, Alexandre
Le 21/05/2018 à 08h23, Paul Smith a écrit : > On Mon, 2018-05-21 at 08:36 +0200, Garreau, Alexandre wrote: >> Then I discovered --load-average, and I’m asking myself wether the >> optimum is -j n+1, -l 1.0, or -l n or n+1? > IMO, there are too many problems with choosing any value as the default >

Re: -j/-l : minimum of jobs running under max-load with auto = cpu+1 default

2018-05-21 Thread Paul Smith
On Mon, 2018-05-21 at 08:36 +0200, Garreau, Alexandre wrote: > Then I discovered --load-average, and I’m asking myself wether the > optimum is -j n+1, -l 1.0, or -l n or n+1? IMO, there are too many problems with choosing any value as the default value: * It's not so simple to determine the numb

-j/-l : minimum of jobs running under max-load with auto = cpu+1 default

2018-05-21 Thread Garreau, Alexandre
Because parallelism is not enough generalized and people don’t seek it enough (make is a good example), I long thought it would be a good thing to have a way to have parallelism activated more easily (or even by default) in make (or manually by automake or anything of this kind), until now I think