On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Dr. David Kirkby<david.kir...@onetel.net> wrote: > > William Stein wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 9:22 AM, Dr. David >> Kirkby<david.kir...@onetel.net> wrote: >>> I know from experience that trying to build programs in parallel, with >>> things like >>> >>> $ make -j 10 >>> >>> will often break them, so I tend not to do it. It's a nice idea, and >>> does work in some cases, but in others one just ends up with a mess. >>> But Sage is a big program, and takes a *long* time to compile. The T5240 >>> (hostname 't2') has a couple of T2+ processors each with 8 cores, (16 >>> cores in total). Building 20-30 Sage .spkg files in parallel on 't2' >>> would speed up the compilation process *considerably*. With the ready >>> availability of multi-core processors (some 'home' machine now have 4 >>> cores), it would seem to me some way of building Sage more quickly would >>> be a really good idea. >> >> >> Same here. That's why since the beginning, in Sage if you type >> >> export MAKE="make -j10" >> >> then the individual spkg's for which parallel make is known to work will >> use "make -j10" and the ones for which it doesn't work will just use "make". >> >> Note that two spkg's will never be built at the same time though. > > > But allowing two spkgs to be built in parallel would be a good idea I > think.
Please read the rest of my email, which was about exactly that. William --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
