I installed openssh server on Windows 11 and tried to ssh to it using the
id_rsa.pub key
but I didn't have luck. I copied the key to .ssh\authorized_keys file.
On linux the last line ending with "\" on Windows Notepad replaces it with the
"+" sign.
ssh with password is working but windows
On Sunday, 7 January 2024 00:54:12 GMT Adam Carter wrote:
> > > So if it's consistently gcc that collapses to two threads, then
> > > something (maybe explicit settings, maybe dependencies, maybe yadda
> > > yadda) is telling make that only two jobs can run at the same time else
> > > they'll trip
>
> > So if it's consistently gcc that collapses to two threads, then
> > something (maybe explicit settings, maybe dependencies, maybe yadda
> > yadda) is telling make that only two jobs can run at the same time else
> > they'll trip over each other.
> >
> > Could be a dev has hard-coded the "two
On Saturday, 6 January 2024 19:28:05 GMT Wols Lists wrote:
> Statistics is one of those areas where, if you don't know what you're
> doing and you use the wrong maths, then you are going to get stupid results.
>
> "Statistics tell you how to get from A to B. What they don't tell you is
> that
On Saturday, 6 January 2024 19:31:59 GMT Wols Lists wrote:
> On 06/01/2024 17:52, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> >> In other cases, there may be a hundred separate tasks, make fires off a
> >> hundred tasks shared amongst all the resource it can find, and sits back
> >> and waits.
> >
> > And that's how
On 06/01/2024 17:52, Peter Humphrey wrote:
In other cases, there may be a hundred separate tasks, make fires off a
hundred tasks shared amongst all the resource it can find, and sits back
and waits.
And that's how the very first installation goes, with single-host distcc. Then,
when it gets
On 06/01/2024 17:59, Peter Humphrey wrote:
On Saturday, 6 January 2024 16:21:30 GMT Wols Lists wrote:
... it's nothing to do with more power or whatever, it's down to simple
statistics. If genloop guesses the statistical spread wrongly, it's
going to mess up its estimates.
Aren't you
On Saturday, 6 January 2024 16:26:49 GMT Daniel Pielmeier wrote:
> Am 5. Januar 2024 23:51:39 UTC schrieb Peter Humphrey
:
> >Hello list,
> >
> >I've just had some strange output from genlop on my 16-thread i5 box, thus:
> >
> ># genlop -t libreoffice | /bin/grep minute
> >
> > merge time:
On Saturday, 6 January 2024 16:21:30 GMT Wols Lists wrote:
> ... it's nothing to do with more power or whatever, it's down to simple
> statistics. If genloop guesses the statistical spread wrongly, it's
> going to mess up its estimates.
Aren't you exaggerating genlop's complexity? I wasn't aware
On Saturday, 6 January 2024 15:28:53 GMT Wols Lists wrote:
> As far as I'm aware, there's no mystery. On a single machine you get the
> exact same thing ... it's all down to parallelism.
>
> Make asks itself "how many separate tasks can I do at the same time,
> which won't interfere with each
On 1/6/24 11:21, Wols Lists wrote:
On 06/01/2024 16:12, John Blinka wrote:
And it doesn’t actually take 2x longer - the new estimate is just
grossly wrong.
I presume that the old estimate was also wrong.
And it's nothing to do with more power or whatever, it's down to
simple statistics. If
Am 5. Januar 2024 23:51:39 UTC schrieb Peter Humphrey :
>Hello list,
>
>I've just had some strange output from genlop on my 16-thread i5 box, thus:
>
># genlop -t libreoffice | /bin/grep minute
> merge time: 37 minutes and 38 seconds.
> merge time: 52 minutes and 59 seconds.
>
On 06/01/2024 16:12, John Blinka wrote:
And it doesn’t actually take 2x longer - the new estimate is just
grossly wrong.
I presume that the old estimate was also wrong.
And it's nothing to do with more power or whatever, it's down to simple
statistics. If genloop guesses the statistical
On Sat, Jan 6, 2024 at 3:56 AM Wols Lists wrote:
> On 06/01/2024 00:54, John Blinka wrote:
> > I’ve often found that it gives one estimate when multiple packages are
> > being built, then a much longer estimate for still-in-progress builds
> > once some of the builds have finished.
> >
> > That
On 29/11/2023 12:06, Peter Humphreey wrote:
The contribution of distcc isn't clear to me yet, as I said before. Sometimes
it's the bee's knees; other times it might just as well not be there. I don't
like mysteries...
As far as I'm aware, there's no mystery. On a single machine you get the
On Saturday, 6 January 2024 11:44:20 GMT Michael wrote:
> On Wednesday, 29 November 2023 12:06:15 GMT Peter Humphreey wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 29 November 2023 10:26:36 GMT Michael wrote:
> > > Here's my hypothesis explaining your own observation with libreoffice.
> > > As
> > > a package or more
On Wednesday, 29 November 2023 12:06:15 GMT Peter Humphreey wrote:
> On Wednesday, 29 November 2023 10:26:36 GMT Michael wrote:
> > Here's my hypothesis explaining your own observation with libreoffice. As
> > a package or more finished emerging, libreoffice's turn comes up. Soon
> > libreoffice
On 06/01/2024 00:54, John Blinka wrote:
I’ve often found that it gives one estimate when multiple packages are
being built, then a much longer estimate for still-in-progress builds
once some of the builds have finished.
That result defies common sense. Less remaining work has to take less,
20 matches
Mail list logo
