Hi Jean > Oh, also: what kind of network setup do you have? If the connection > is very slow you might see this problem of jobs getting stranded on > 10.0.0.3 and localhost needing to wait around for them.
Actually 10.0.0.3 is located in a dmz, so it may take about 1 second for connections to get past the firewall - but when a connection is opened it runs 100 MBit/s. > I've installed distcc on two identical computers, each with two processors > with hyperthreading (localhost and 10.0.0.3). > > Monitoring the computers with top, I can see that 10.0.0.3 does all (or > most) of the compiling, while the pattern of localhost is like compiling > with make -j1. > This is not the standard behavior. Which version of distcc are you using? > Did you compile it yourself? Any additional patch applied? I'm using v. 2.18.3, I compiled and installed it myself by collowing the "30-second instructions" in distcc.samba.org. I have not applied any patches. > Try using distccmon-gnome to monitor the job distribution, it may be more > helpful than top. Also watch the logs for errors. If distribution to > localhost fails, it should generate an error message at some point. The logs yields no result. I ran distccmon-text and the following is a typical result (that is this shows the most processes that ran at any time). 27837 Blocked [0] 27840 Blocked [0] 27843 Blocked [0] 27846 Blocked [0] 27850 Blocked [0] 27853 Blocked [0] 27856 Blocked [0] 27868 Blocked [0] 27914 Blocked [0] 27834 Compile file1.cpp 10.0.0.3[0] 27970 Compile file2.cpp 10.0.0.3[1] 27976 Compile file3.cpp 10.0.0.3[2] 27950 Compile file4.cpp 10.0.0.3[3] 27812 Compile file5.cpp localhost[0] 27984 Compile file6.cpp localhost[1] > Setting DISTCC_VERBOSE=1 for the client may help. It produced more than 10000 lines of output, but I found the following to support the output above: distcc[9972] (dcc_note_state) note state 1, file "(NULL)", host "(NULL)" distcc[10007] (dcc_note_state) note state 1, file "(NULL)", host "(NULL)" distcc[10071] (dcc_lock_pause) nothing available, sleeping 1s... distcc[9972] (dcc_lock_pause) nothing available, sleeping 1s... distcc[10007] (dcc_lock_pause) nothing available, sleeping 1s... distcc[9978] (dcc_lock_host) /home/simon/.distcc/lock/cpu_localhost_0 is busy distcc[9978] (dcc_lock_host) /home/simon/.distcc/lock/cpu_tcp_10.163.0.3_3632_0 is busy distcc[9978] (dcc_lock_host) /home/simon/.distcc/lock/cpu_localhost_1 is busy distcc[9978] (dcc_lock_host) /home/simon/.distcc/lock/cpu_tcp_10.163.0.3_3632_1 is busy distcc[9978] (dcc_lock_host) /home/simon/.distcc/lock/cpu_tcp_10.163.0.3_3632_2 is busy distcc[9978] (dcc_lock_host) /home/simon/.distcc/lock/cpu_tcp_10.163.0.3_3632_3 is busy distcc[9978] (dcc_note_state) note state 1, file "(NULL)", host "(NULL)" distcc[10027] (dcc_lock_host) /home/simon/.distcc/lock/cpu_localhost_0 is busy distcc[9978] (dcc_lock_pause) nothing available, sleeping 1s... distcc[10027] (dcc_lock_host) /home/simon/.distcc/lock/cpu_tcp_10.163.0.3_3632_0 is busy distcc[10027] (dcc_lock_host) /home/simon/.distcc/lock/cpu_localhost_1 is busy I reads it as localhost does not want to accept more than two compiles at any time (this time I ran without any /n limitations in the hosts file). > Which options did you run distccd with on both machines? Didn't you > forget to run distccd on localhost? I ran both with distccd --daemon --allow On 10.0.0.3 with "10.0.0.0/24" as allow list and localhost with "127.0.0.1 localhost" as allow list (both with and without the quotest). -- Best regards, Simon Mikkelsen __ distcc mailing list http://distcc.samba.org/ To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/distcc