On Thursday 27 January 2011 21:25:02 Paul Hartman wrote: > On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Nikos Chantziaras <rea...@arcor.de> wrote: > > On 01/27/2011 09:41 PM, Dale wrote: > >> YoYo Siska wrote: > >>> Yes. > >>> It might not be perfect, but mostly it works pretty well. > >>> Once make started 10 or so process, which ate all my ram, because I > >>> forgot to reenable swap, when I was playing with something before that > >>> > >>> :) > >>> > >>> yoyo > >> > >> I noticed the same thing with mine. It used a LOT of ram. I have 4Gbs > >> and it was up to about 3Gbs at one point and using some swap as well. > >> I'm hoping to max out to 16Gbs as soon as I can. May upgrade to a 6 core > >> CPU too. > >> > >> I wonder how much faster it would be if the work directory is put on > >> tmpfs? With 16Gbs, that should work even for OOo. > > > > Btw, if you're using more instances than the amount of CPUs, the result > > will be slow-down. > > > > With the default kernel scheduler, best if amount of CPUs + 1. (On a > > 4-core, that's -j5). > > Once, when building my kernel, I accidentally forgot to specify the > number of makes and ran "make -j all". That was a really bad idea, the > system became totally unresponsive for quite a long time, much longer > than normal kernel build time, but it did eventually finish!
I have found that multi-core systems with sufficient memory can handle "-j" (no value) a lot better then sindle-core systems. I do on occasion do it with the kernel and can still continue using the system. (For comparison, my desktop is a 4-core AMD64 with 8GB memory) -- Joost
