Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
> [LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
>> I just upgraded a couple of systems to Releng_7 and everything works just
>> fine, except for make -j. With the -j parameter every file is simply deemed
>> "up to date" and nothing at all gets built.
>>
>&
[LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
> I just upgraded a couple of systems to Releng_7 and everything works just
> fine, except for make -j. With the -j parameter every file is simply deemed
> "up to date" and nothing at all gets built.
>
> Does anyone else experience this? Would it hel
I just upgraded a couple of systems to Releng_7 and everything works just
fine, except for make -j. With the -j parameter every file is simply deemed
"up to date" and nothing at all gets built.
Does anyone else experience this? Would it help to rebuild world? After all
the first time i
> > 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 valu
On Monday 16 October 2006 15:33, Garance A Drosehn wrote:
> At 1:47 PM -0700 10/13/06, Kent Stewart wrote:
> >On Friday 13 October 2006 07:31, Buki wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I searched the archives and web a little but found many different
> >> opi
At 1:47 PM -0700 10/13/06, Kent Stewart 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
On 10/13/06, Kent Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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).
>
>
On Oct 13, 2006, at 5:49 PM, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
Same exact error on buildkernel -j2, but success without -j2.
I put up logs + kernel config at http://vivek.khera.org/scratch/
buildkernel/
That one has been fixed in RELENG_6, in src/sys/conf/files.i386:
Excellent! I'll be updating my pr
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 04:52:18PM -0400, Vivek Khera wrote:
>
> On Oct 13, 2006, at 4:07 PM, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
>
> >OK, please try merging my fix then, it should help.
> >Please come back to me with a success report. :-)
>
> I applied the patch to bring i386/acpica/Makefile up to version 1
On Oct 13, 2006, at 4:07 PM, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
OK, please try merging my fix then, it should help.
Please come back to me with a success report. :-)
I applied the patch to bring i386/acpica/Makefile up to version 1.7
Same exact error on buildkernel -j2, but success without -j2.
I put u
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 pro
Le 13/10/2006 à 16:31:30+0200, Buki a écrit
> 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 b
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 01:12:38PM -0400, Vivek Khera wrote:
>
> On Oct 13, 2006, at 12:33 PM, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
>
> >>Works for me with -j2 on buildworld.
> >>
> >>My buildkernel fails since I compile acpi static.
> >>
> >Hmm, and where and how does it break? This commit (not yet
>
> i pok
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 12:56:28PM -0400, Vivek Khera wrote:
>
> On Oct 13, 2006, at 12:33 PM, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
>
> >>Works for me with -j2 on buildworld.
> >>
> >>My buildkernel fails since I compile acpi static.
> >>
> >Hmm, and where and how does it break? This commit (not yet
> >in RELE
Buki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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.
In addition t
>
> Some work is now being done so that -j can be reliably used on
> 'make buildkernel', but I don't think that has been completed yet. For
> now, my own opinion is that you're not going to save enough time with
> -j on buildkernel to justify the amount of time you'll lose if it does
> not work.
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 use -j2 on all my dual cpu/core boxes, i don&#
At 4:31 PM +0200 10/13/06, 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.
It depends on the target
On Oct 13, 2006, at 12:33 PM, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
Works for me with -j2 on buildworld.
My buildkernel fails since I compile acpi static.
Hmm, and where and how does it break? This commit (not yet
i poked around some more and i do see acpi broken, but make just
ignores the error during
On Oct 13, 2006, at 12:33 PM, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
Works for me with -j2 on buildworld.
My buildkernel fails since I compile acpi static.
Hmm, and where and how does it break? This commit (not yet
in RELENG_6) doesn't help?
To be clear: make buildkernel works, but make -j2 builkernel us
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 11:06:37AM -0400, Vivek Khera wrote:
>
> On Oct 13, 2006, at 10:31 AM, Buki wrote:
>
> >I searched the archives and web a little but found many different
> >opinions
> >on stability/usability of using make -j# with buildworld (and
> &g
On Oct 13, 2006, at 10:31 AM, Buki wrote:
I searched the archives and web a little but found many different
opinions
on stability/usability of using make -j# with buildworld (and
buildkernel).
Works for me with -j2 on buildworld.
My buildkernel fails since I compile acpi static.
But I
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.
Thanks,
Marek Kozlovsky
--
PGP public key: http://dev.null.cz
At 02:13 PM 24/07/2005, Karl Denninger wrote:
On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 at 07:58:20PM +0200, Erik Trulsson wrote:
> Most likely the bug you have run into is difficult or impossible to
> reproduce on other hardware than the particular combination you are using.
FWIW my earlier post about it appearing
Karl Denninger wrote:
Update - it appears that as long as I only use ONE of the two channels on
the card, it works ok.
That explains why I only got _one_ SATA cable with the $20 SiL 3112 card
i bought last year :-)
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 at 07:58:20PM +0200, Erik Trulsson wrote:
> Most likely the bug you have run into is difficult or impossible to
> reproduce on other hardware than the particular combination you are using.
FWIW my earlier post about it appearing to work with only one disk on the
chain was inco
On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 at 07:58:20PM +0200, Erik Trulsson wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 11:00:55PM -0500, Karl Denninger wrote:
>> Should not there be an EXPLICIT note in the release notes for hardware that
>> this chipset WILL NOT WORK PROPERLY?
>
> It does seem to work for many users, or there
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 11:00:55PM -0500, Karl Denninger wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 at 05:43:34AM +0200, Erik Trulsson wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 09:01:36PM -0500, Karl Denninger wrote:
> > > Done.
> > >
> > > Note that the Bustek and Adaptec cards which exhibit the problem BOTH
> > >
3Ware cards will work with 32 bit PCI buses.
At 10:20 AM 7/24/2005, Karl Denninger wrote:
Those cards all have (and appear to require) PCI-64 (double-connector) bus
plug-ins. For those of us with single PCI bus slots (e.g. those of us who
don't have Opterons), that simply won't work unless I'm
Update - it appears that as long as I only use ONE of the two channels on
the card, it works ok.
I've got a "buildworld" running right now on the Sandbox, but with only
one of the two disks attached. So far, no errors.
So it would appear that the problem IS related to the previously-reported
iss
At 10:20 AM 24/07/2005, Karl Denninger wrote:
Those cards all have (and appear to require) PCI-64 (double-connector) bus
plug-ins. For those of us with single PCI bus slots (e.g. those of us who
don't have Opterons), that simply won't work unless I'm missing something.
I have used the 3ware ca
On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 at 03:04:09PM +0100, Robert Watson wrote:
>
> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005, Karl Denninger wrote:
>
> >PR being filed now.
>
> When you've filed the PR and get a PR# receipt back, please forward me
> the PR# receipt.
>
> FYI, your spam filter thinks every message I send you as spam
Those cards all have (and appear to require) PCI-64 (double-connector) bus
plug-ins. For those of us with single PCI bus slots (e.g. those of us who
don't have Opterons), that simply won't work unless I'm missing something.
--
--
Karl Denninger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Internet Consultant & Kids Righ
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005, Karl Denninger wrote:
PR being filed now.
When you've filed the PR and get a PR# receipt back, please forward me the
PR# receipt.
FYI, your spam filter thinks every message I send you as spam. It's not
impossible it might think the same of the GNATS source address, s
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005, Mike Tancsa wrote:
At 12:00 AM 24/07/2005, Karl Denninger wrote:
Finally, any pointers on a 2 port PCI SATA board that (1) is KNOWN to
work, (2) has EXTERNAL SATA connections, and (3) isn't one of those
whiz-bang all-in-one-RAID thingies that costs $500?
3ware makes an e
That's encouraging...
--
--
Karl Denninger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.netMy home on the net - links to everything I do!
http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING!
http://homecuda.com Eme
Karl Denninger wrote:
Near as I can find out, the 3114's only difference is that it has 4
ports instead of 2 (which seems obvious, but if you look around,
that's what it looks like)
I bet this problem bites anyone with a 3114 chipset too - can someone
test and confirm?
I have a Tyan Transport
At 12:00 AM 24/07/2005, Karl Denninger wrote:
Finally, any pointers on a 2 port PCI SATA board that (1) is KNOWN to
work, (2) has EXTERNAL SATA connections, and (3) isn't one of those
whiz-bang all-in-one-RAID thingies that costs $500?
3ware makes an excellent 2 port SATA card (8000 series) th
On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 at 05:43:34AM +0200, Erik Trulsson wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 09:01:36PM -0500, Karl Denninger wrote:
> > Done.
> >
> > Note that the Bustek and Adaptec cards which exhibit the problem BOTH
> > identify the same (on two different machines) as SII 3112 boards, and
> > BO
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 09:01:36PM -0500, Karl Denninger wrote:
> Done.
>
> Note that the Bustek and Adaptec cards which exhibit the problem BOTH
> identify the same (on two different machines) as SII 3112 boards, and
> BOTH fail.
>
> There are minor differences in the interrupts and memory mapp
Done.
Note that the Bustek and Adaptec cards which exhibit the problem BOTH
identify the same (on two different machines) as SII 3112 boards, and
BOTH fail.
There are minor differences in the interrupts and memory mapping used
(which is to be expected, as there are peripherals in the production
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 08:53:02PM +0100, Robert Watson wrote:
>
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Danny Howard wrote:
>
> >While I agree with Karl that introducing instability is a very bad
> >thing, I guess we now have an answer to Karl's vexation yesterday: [
> >http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freeb
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Karl Denninger wrote:
It is definitely NOT fixed in 6.0-BETA1
Within SECONDS of starting a buildworld after the provider rebuild
completed, I got this...
Could you file a PR based on this report? Specifically, if you could
include:
- The error output below.
- If po
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Danny Howard wrote:
While I agree with Karl that introducing instability is a very bad
thing, I guess we now have an answer to Karl's vexation yesterday: [
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2005-July/017210.html
]
"What I don't understand Robert is w
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 07:53:00PM -0700, Danny Howard wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 02:53:57PM -0500, Karl Denninger wrote:
> [...]
> > Note carefully from this that there is NO ERROR INDICATION AS TO WHY THE
> > DISK DETACHED!
> >
> > At least with the 5.x problems you'd SEE an error before i
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 02:53:57PM -0500, Karl Denninger wrote:
[...]
> Note carefully from this that there is NO ERROR INDICATION AS TO WHY THE
> DISK DETACHED!
>
> At least with the 5.x problems you'd SEE an error before it went BOOM.
>
> This time around, nope - just death.
>
> What's worse,
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 02:40:09PM -0500, Karl Denninger wrote:
> It is definitely NOT fixed in 6.0-BETA1
>
> Within SECONDS of starting a buildworld after the provider rebuild
> completed, I got this...
>
> GEOM_MIRROR: Device boot: provider ad4s1 detected.
> GEOM_MIRROR: Device boot: rebuilding
It is definitely NOT fixed in 6.0-BETA1
Within SECONDS of starting a buildworld after the provider rebuild
completed, I got this...
GEOM_MIRROR: Device boot: provider ad4s1 detected.
GEOM_MIRROR: Device boot: rebuilding provider ad4s1.
GEOM_MIRROR: Device boot: provider ad6s1 detected.
GEOM_MIRRO
Karl Denninger wrote:
As I pointed out in my PR, "make -j4 buildworld" is more than sufficient
to demonstrate the problem.
( ... )
I'll pull over 6.0-BETA1, rebuild the array (that is the time-consuming
part of this test - takes 6-8 hours for the rebuild to run) and see if it
fails during a
At 2:08 PM +0900 11/23/04, Rob wrote:
Hi,
I have tested following with FreeBSD 5.3-Stable.
On several different PCs I have used
make -j$n buildworld
with $n ranging from 1 to 9.
Although people suggest "-j4" as optimal in general
case, I have come to a very different conclusion...
So,
David Schwartz wrote:
According to my formula:
time(minutes) = 1e5 / ( speed(MHz) * nproc )
and taking nproc = 1, this results in
time = 1e5 / 2798.66 = 36 minutes
Quite accurate for your system as well. At least this formula gives a
resonable estimate about the compile time.
Apparently HT does
> According to my formula:
>
>time(minutes) = 1e5 / ( speed(MHz) * nproc )
>
> and taking nproc = 1, this results in
>
>time = 1e5 / 2798.66 = 36 minutes
>
> Quite accurate for your system as well. At least this formula gives a
> resonable estimate about the compile time.
>
> Apparently HT
Frank Behrens wrote:
I read this thread with interest and saw the question, how the system
wil behave with hyperthreading. Should I not benchmark my system?
here you have the results. The interpretation is left to the experts.
IMHO HT is not as useless as expected. :-)
I did not switch off SMP w
889856 (1023 MB)
avail memory = 1040453632 (992 MB)
Two 117246MB [238216/16/63] at ata2-master
SATA150, one is on /usr/src, the other on /usr/obj.
SMP Kernel 5.3-STABLE, nearly GENERIC, option SMP, some drivers removed
==
Fri Nov 26 13:58:54 CET 2004
Start make -j 5 -DNOG
889856 (1023 MB)
avail memory = 1040453632 (992 MB)
Two 117246MB [238216/16/63] at ata2-master
SATA150, one is on /usr/src, the other on /usr/obj.
SMP Kernel 5.3-STABLE, nearly GENERIC, option SMP, some drivers removed
==
Fri Nov 26 13:58:54 CET 2004
Start make -j 5 -DNOG
Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 11:44:53AM +0900, Rob wrote:
Nick Barnes wrote:
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 16:19:02 +0900, Rob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
time(minutes) * speed(MHz) * nproc / 1000 MHz
Looking at your examples, it seems you divide by 1e5, not by 1000.
Sorry, yes you're righ
On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 11:44:53AM +0900, Rob wrote:
> Nick Barnes wrote:
> >On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 16:19:02 +0900, Rob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>time(minutes) * speed(MHz) * nproc / 1000 MHz
> >
> >
> >Looking at your examples, it seems you divide by 1e5, not by 1000.
>
> Sorry, ye
Nick Barnes wrote:
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 16:19:02 +0900, Rob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
time(minutes) * speed(MHz) * nproc / 1000 MHz
Looking at your examples, it seems you divide by 1e5, not by 1000.
Sorry, yes you're right.
In other words, buildworld is CPU bound and takes about 6e12 clock
cy
On Thu, Nov 25, 2004 at 11:14:42AM +0100, Ronald Klop wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 01:28:55 -0800, Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, Nov 25, 2004 at 10:09:35AM +0100, Ronald Klop wrote:
> >
> >>Would all this work for 'make index' for the ports also? Or is this more
> >>io
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 16:19:02 +0900, Rob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > time(minutes) * speed(MHz) * nproc / 1000 MHz
Looking at your examples, it seems you divide by 1e5, not by 1000. In
other words, buildworld is CPU bound and takes about 6e12 clock
cycles. Use -j.
Nick B
___
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 01:28:55 -0800, Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Thu, Nov 25, 2004 at 10:09:35AM +0100, Ronald Klop wrote:
Would all this work for 'make index' for the ports also? Or is this more
io bound?
I can't test this myself, because my laptop is to slow for making these
tes
On Thu, Nov 25, 2004 at 10:09:35AM +0100, Ronald Klop wrote:
> Would all this work for 'make index' for the ports also? Or is this more
> io bound?
> I can't test this myself, because my laptop is to slow for making these
> tests any fun.
Based on my tests, 'make index' is only faster with -j
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 16:19:02 +0900, Rob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Rob wrote:
Brian Szymanski wrote:
Did you try any machines that used Hyperthreading? I'd be interested to
see how those machines fare based on the number of logical and real
CPUs.
Although people suggest "-j4" as optimal in gene
Rob wrote:
Brian Szymanski wrote:
Did you try any machines that used Hyperthreading? I'd be interested to
see how those machines fare based on the number of logical and real CPUs.
Although people suggest "-j4" as optimal in general
case, I have come to a very different conclusion:
1) single CPU wi
Brian Szymanski wrote:
Did you try any machines that used Hyperthreading? I'd be interested to
see how those machines fare based on the number of logical and real CPUs.
Although people suggest "-j4" as optimal in general
case, I have come to a very different conclusion:
1) single CPU with enough R
00 MHz, 1GB)
> speed up by almost two from "-j1" to "-j2",
> but after that no noticeable speed up anymore.
> So "-j2" is as good as "-j9".
Again, you went to the trouble, post the numbers?
> With these simple tests, I come to the
Rob wrote:
> I have tested following with FreeBSD 5.3-Stable.
>
> On several different PCs I have used
> make -j$n buildworld
> with $n ranging from 1 to 9.
>
> Although people suggest "-j4" as optimal in general
> case, I have come to a very different conclus
> With these simple tests, I come to the conclusion that
> "make -j$n buildworld" is best with n = number of CPUs.
> Does that make sense?
Yes, I believe this makes sense. The recommendations made in the handbook
(n >= 4) date back from the time when IO was the bottlen
Hi,
I have tested following with FreeBSD 5.3-Stable.
On several different PCs I have used
make -j$n buildworld
with $n ranging from 1 to 9.
Although people suggest "-j4" as optimal in general
case, I have come to a very different conclusion:
1) single CPU with enough RAM (2 G
If you abuse the "-j X" option of make you could make your box eat itself
(i.e. it's resources),
I've seen it happen on some OSs when compiling kernels, but I admit to
using "make -j" occasionally.
Blair Sutton
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wi
> The rule with -j is that it _should_ work, if it doesn't then try
> without -j and let us know.
I did a buildworld/buildkernel last week with "-j 8" on my dual celeron system and
all, apparently, went fine.
It saved about 30-40% of time. Version 4.2-stable.
Could someone, please, explain to m
On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 11:11:11AM +0300, Igor Robul wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 10:16:13AM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> > > in make.conf, so I don't issue `make -j n' all the time, but simply type
> > > in `make target' and all my options would come
On Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 10:16:13AM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> > in make.conf, so I don't issue `make -j n' all the time, but simply type
> > in `make target' and all my options would come in play?
>
> Not that I know of.
alias make make -j2
in your ~/.c
Hello!
You see, I actually never had a clear vision of the whole `make -j' issue
during making the world. Most notably, I'm not quite sure that it's
perfectly OK to use it, that is, not being afraid that something would go
wrong. So, I've been running make without speci
> Regarding the -j option, I seem to remember someone telling me that
> option was only for make buildworld/installworld and not the modules
> or anything else.
This information is outdated I believe. This used to be true however, I can
attest to having built 4.x worlds with -j 4 many times.
: Makoto MATSUSHITA
}Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
}Subject: Re: We cannot use 'make -j' option to build the
}world, period.
}
}
}I've done make -j 3 buildworld couple of days ago and it worked fine.
}Just my 0.02$
}
}On Sat, 4 Nov 2000, Makoto MATSUSHITA wrote:
}
}>
}> matusita> I'
I've done make -j 3 buildworld couple of days ago and it worked fine.
Just my 0.02$
On Sat, 4 Nov 2000, Makoto MATSUSHITA wrote:
>
> matusita> I've found that current src/sys/modules/linux for RELENG_4
> matusita> is not 'make -j' safe. It maybe causes a prob
77 matches
Mail list logo
