On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 08:49:29 -0700, Jake McGuire wrote > Also, if you aren't randomizing the host list, you really want to do > so, and (IMHO) it's worth increasing the number of allowable jobs on > the remote machines so that you'll be unlikely to have lock > contention, as with 70 engineers and a networked lock directory > that'll get ugly, fast.
As I understand it, once the host list is randomized, having a single, networked lock directory is pointless, isn't it? Just put a job limit on each daemon, in case the random is not random enough, and it should work fine. I think I remember that host list randomization is a new feature though, probably not present in 2.16, which the original poster is using. -- Jean Delvare http://khali.linux-fr.org/ __ distcc mailing list http://distcc.samba.org/ To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/distcc
