DSB wrote: > Isn't nproc or nproc+1 too much? On systems with hyper-threading, > this will try using too many jobs, and might cause the system be > significantly less responsive. Maybe nproc/2 is a better default? > > > This is an interesting question and I suppose the answer depends on many > factors. At my organization we've actually gone the other direction and > default to -j > (nproc * 2) on the theory that one of the two jobs is liable to be sleeping > on I/O at any given time. But this is very much a YMMV area and the builtin > default, > if there was to be one at all, should be conservative so nproc * 2 would be a > bad choice.
I've always used nproc * 1.5. This factor was determined empirically by observing idle time on many builds using nproc * 1 and nproc * 2. -- -- Howard Chu CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/ Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/
