On 15 Apr 2004, Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Martin Pool wrote: > >>1. Since the list of hosts read from $prefix/etc/distcc/hosts is > >>the same for all workstations, every workstation will > >>issue large compile jobs to itself sometimes even though it'd be better > >>off only handling preprocessing and linking (right?) > > > >Linking counts against jobs running on the local machine too. If it's > >linking in parallel with compiling then it should try to do the > >compiles remotely. > > Ah, so it notices that "localhost" is the same machine as "zytor" > when running on zytor?
No, it won't do that. > That's just a direct replacement for the hosts file, though, isn't it? > I'm not sure I want IT to be involved in this; it's a lot easier for > me to modify distcc/hosts than it is to create DNS entries! OK. I'm not sure then. Maybe you should have different hosts files for each machine to randomize theorder. > >If the workstations have a reasonable amount of memory then running a > >couple of low-priority daemons should not hurt too much. Remember it > >will only accept about 2*NCPUS. > > Yes, but that means the compile jobs (which could run faster on > some other compile server which is ready and waiting) will execute > slower. Yes. > >We could check the load average before accepting jobs but that is > >actually a pretty poor measure for modern machines. > > Oh, I dunno, the number of processes in 'R' state seems > like it'd be a pretty good measure of load if there's > plenty of RAM and the distcc job wouldn't cause any disk I/O. > Or the number of processes in 'R' or 'D' state if jobs do tend > to do disk I/O, maybe. One problem is that load average responds pretty slowly to changing state. It might still be worth trying though. -- Martin
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
__ distcc mailing list http://distcc.samba.org/ To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/distcc
