As mentioned last week, Ive put together these
changes for submission to the project.
Our local setup is that no compiling is done locally.
Weve got big enough jobs that the local machine is busy with linking and
preprocessing. We also found that going above about j 15 didnt
improve total
I modified my original patch by hand, and checked that it applies
cleanly, and that the code compiles, and still does the right thing.
I've attached my randomization patch to this message.
It stores the remote hosts file in a global now. This isn't strictly
necessary for this patch, but in
In response to your other questions:
Why not simply use the hostname instead of localhost? I'd expect it to
be more simple, and to work in all cases. Am I missing something?
No, you're not missing anything. Using the hostname instead of
localhost would be fine. It's just a matter of a
-Original Message-
Try using:
$ make -j -l8
on a 4 processor box. This instructs job control to restrict the load to
8
(loosely approximated to 8 jobs wanting to be in a running state
simultaneously). If all of the compilation is done remotely, several
preprocessor tasks can run, hopefully
I've found the FAQ has a couple questions about NFS. Namely, Files
written to NFS filesystems are corrupt and distccmon doesn't work on
NFS
These seem more like warnings than prohibitions, and indeed, we haven't
had any problems with object files full of zeros, and distccmon has been
modified
So I used our business logic archive to test performance of having
locks on a local disk verses on an NFS mount.
I used -j 15 to build the archive, and it consists of roughly 300 object
files.
I altered the DISTCC_DIR environment variable to point to either an NFS
mounted directory, or the local
-
From: Martin Pool [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 6:18 AM
To: Donohue, Michael
Cc: Daniel Kegel; distcc@lists.samba.org
Subject: Re: [distcc] Local vs. NFS lock files.
On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 12:49 -0700, Donohue, Michael wrote:
This is enough to convince me that NFS
Care to elaborate on implementing a semaphore that is always correct?
Michael
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 8:26 PM
To: Donohue, Michael
Cc: Martin Pool; distcc@lists.samba.org; Daniel Kegel
Subject: RE: [distcc] Local
Hi,
I have submitted two patches that add options to the host
file. I am not sure if this is generally an accepted way of configuring things
with distcc. I followed Dan Kegels lead by looking at his randomized
hosts code, but I also notice that his code hasnt been accepted into the
main
You might want to check out the FAQ or documentation:
http://distcc.samba.org/faq.html#not-parallel
Michael
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of yvain.orc
Sent: Mon 4/25/2005 6:18 AM
To: distcc@lists.samba.org
Subject: [distcc] distcc only works on one computer
Depending on the size of the network segment where these hosts are
located, you could use nmap to find all hosts listening on port 3632.
Something like:
nmap -p 3632 '10.1.2.*'
Michael
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Timothee Besset
I would like to get my patches considered for inclusion, but
they seem to be held up by not having a proper place to configure
flags. I dont find using the hosts file all that
objectionable, since I want to be able to control these on a system wide
basis. This means that everyone who uses
It would be nice if this were configurable, so that users can decide how
many retries they want to have until distcc falls back on the localhost.
One advantage to this approach is that the existing behavior can be made
the default value, remote-attempts=1, but users who do not want any
local
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Donohue, Michael
Sent: Fri 6/10/2005 9:05 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; distcc@lists.samba.org
Subject: RE: [distcc] Little or no compilation at localhost
I believe the code special-cases the text localhost Try 127.0.0.1 instead,
to see
14 matches
Mail list logo
