On 24 July 2014 19:24, Nelson A. de Oliveira <nao...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Martin Møller Skarbiniks Pedersen > <traxpla...@gmail.com> wrote: > > try remove the -j +0 parameter. > > If I am not wrong, "-j +0" should be the same thing as no -j, right? > But just in case, testing without -j the problem is exactly the same: > a large amount of memory usage and no processing at all. > Oops. You are right. I misread it with -j0 instead of -j +0 /Martin
