On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 4:39 AM, Eli Zaretskii e...@gnu.org wrote:
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:26:19 -0700
From: tom honermann tom.honerm...@oracle.com
Cc: bug-make@gnu.org
On 3/18/2010 2:22 PM, Thiago C. Santini wrote:
Yeah, that was my first thought when using -j, 8 processors each
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:26:19 -0700
From: tom honermann tom.honerm...@oracle.com
Cc: bug-make@gnu.org
On 3/18/2010 2:22 PM, Thiago C. Santini wrote:
Yeah, that was my first thought when using -j, 8 processors each one
with hyper-threading should be optimized with 16 jobs but when
We have a computer in our lab we use to run simulations and sometimes
compiling. It's been working just fine for over 6 months now but during the
last week we had it's first 3 crashes(only fixable by hard restarting the
machine). I'm not a very experienced linux user so all I tried to do to find
On Thu, 2010-03-18 at 14:57 -0300, Thiago C. Santini wrote:
We have a computer in our lab we use to run simulations and sometimes
compiling. It's been working just fine for over 6 months now but
during the last week we had it's first 3 crashes(only fixable by hard
restarting the machine). I'm
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 5:41 PM, Paul Smith psm...@gnu.org wrote:
On Thu, 2010-03-18 at 14:57 -0300, Thiago C. Santini wrote:
We have a computer in our lab we use to run simulations and sometimes
compiling. It's been working just fine for over 6 months now but
during the last week we had
On 3/18/2010 2:22 PM, Thiago C. Santini wrote:
Yeah, that was my first thought when using -j, 8 processors each one
with hyper-threading should be optimized with 16 jobs but when testing
it I got better results with 32 jobs and that was working just fine
till last week, so I just sticked to
