On 6/5/07, Bryan Kadzban <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I like Dan's idea, FWIW (mention the -j option in the
> text, but put a cautionary note in there saying that compile errors may
> happen, and to re-try the compile without -j if they do).
That's pretty much what I was thinking initially, before
Miguel Bazdresch wrote:
> I agree with all you say, but I believe you're missing something more
> important than context switches: cache and bus conflicts. These are
> the main reason performance suffers when a core is running more than
> one active thread.
Right, I kind of assumed that stuff was
On 5/27/07, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ah, you're right. LFS used to create /opt/{bin,lib,include,...} for
> you. But not anymore.
>
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/6.1/chapter06/creatingdirs.html
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/development/chapter06/creating
El Lunes, 4 de Junio de 2007 02:45, Archaic escribió:
>
> On the vim page, where the docs are symlinked, a hardcoded reference to
> vim70 exists.
This one has been fixed in r8148. Thanks.
--
Manuel Canales Esparcia
Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org
LFS en castellano:
On 6/4/07, Greg Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Deskin Miller wrote:
>
> > Is this worth adding to the book?
>
> Most definitely IMHO. Multi-core systems will soon be the norm. It's just
> crazy not to take advantage. There used to exist a "SMP" hint somewhere.
> Maybe this is it:
>
> http://w
> Greg Schafer wrote:
>> A lot of seasoned SMP-building folks work on the basis of make -j X+1
ie: make -j3 if you have 2 cpus or 2 cores. As a person who has been
building in parallel for a long time, I strongly disagree with a
comment elsewhere in this thread about performance plummeting if
overu
Greg Schafer wrote:
> A lot of seasoned SMP-building folks work on the basis of make -j X+1
> ie: make -j3 if you have 2 cpus or 2 cores. As a person who has been
> building in parallel for a long time, I strongly disagree with a
> comment elsewhere in this thread about performance plummeting if
>
Mohan wrote:
> I've actually seen some improvement on compile times running Athlons
> and such as well with -j2... I suspect it fills time the compiler spends
> waiting for this or that read, or write, or something. There are
> certainly a lot of packages I've run into that have trouble with
> par
