Andrew Gaffney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sat, 26 Jul 2008 16:56:20 -0500:
> Duncan wrote: >> "--jobs=10 --keep-going --load-average=15" > > For a dual-dual-core setup, a load average of 4.0 is "fully loaded". > Anything higher than that and you're just causing jobs to queue up > unnecessarily and your system to "thrash". Not really. The highest system load-average possible is the one-minute load-average, right? From my experience there are times when it just sits there doing nothing. No I/O, CPU graphs low, but load average still high so it won't start any more jobs. I see gains at times up to ~4 jobs per core (tho it's arguably possible they're counteracted above say, 3/core, by extra shuffling, I won't argue that and haven't checked that closely, I just don't like to see blank spots in the CPU utilization that aren't accounted for by I/O). I just boosted it to five so I could do the below.... >> have MAKEOPTS="-j -l20" so it's not going to be low all the time). > > Same thing here. Also, why would you specify different --load-average > values in these two places? The idea here is to create a differential, so it doesn't start new builds when a single build can adequately parallelize. I'm building in tmpfs, which is (limited quantity, 8 gigs, but...) memory, and if a single emerge is keeping the system sufficiently busy, no reason to add a new one to the pile. However, when a single merge isn't keeping the system busy, /then/ add more. The differential at least in theory should favour single packages when they can provide sufficient parallelization. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
