At 12:51 PM +0900 11/23/04, Rob wrote:
Laurence Sanford wrote:
Rob wrote:
With these simple tests, I come to the conclusion that
make -j$n buildworld is best with n = number of CPUs.
Does that make sense?
Rob.
This is what I've been telling people and using
Garance A Drosihn wrote:
Also, did you do your benchmarking before or after the recent
fixes to -j processing? I haven't redone them after that change,
and I think it will be interesting to see what effect that has.
These tests were done on 5.3-Stable as of Nov. 22nd.
I believe these -j changes
At 10:41 AM +0900 11/24/04, Rob wrote:
Garance A Drosihn wrote:
Also, did you do your benchmarking before or after the recent
fixes to -j processing? I haven't redone them after that change,
and I think it will be interesting to see what effect that has.
These tests were done on 5.3-Stable as of
Hi,
I have tested following with FreeBSD 5.3-Stable.
On several different PCs I have used
make -j$n buildworld
with $n ranging from 1 to 9.
Although people suggest -j4 as optimal in general
case, I have come to a very different conclusion:
1) single CPU with enough RAM (2 GHz, 512 MB)
Laurence Sanford wrote:
Rob wrote:
With these simple tests, I come to the conclusion that
make -j$n buildworld is best with n = number of CPUs.
Does that make sense?
Rob.
This is what I've been telling people and using myself for years.
However, I've been
The idea behind the speedups by using nnumber of CPUs is that you use
unused CPU cycles during disk activity. Obviously this works only on
systems which use 'low CPU usage storage' such as SCSI, firewire or more
prominently NFS for the sources. Of cause this also assumes you don't
have any
