On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 11:35 PM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
Quick update...I now have two of these things set up in a distcc cluster
with my Phenom 9650. ~530 packages in 228m 34s. There's an even larger
initial explosion of parallel emerge jobs, but it spreads out very
nicely...I
Am 2011-11-26 17:03, schrieb Stefan G. Weichinger:
Thanks for quoting me, Michael ... but I also googled that command
somewhere ... not my idea ... ;-)
Just went to that URL to cut and paste the command, the mentioned one
doesn't work!
My make.conf shows this comment/command:
gcc
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Stefan G. Weichinger li...@xunil.at wrote:
Am 2011-11-26 17:03, schrieb Stefan G. Weichinger:
Thanks for quoting me, Michael ... but I also googled that command
somewhere ... not my idea ... ;-)
Just went to that URL to cut and paste the command, the
Quick update...I now have two of these things set up in a distcc cluster
with my Phenom 9650. ~530 packages in 228m 34s. There's an even larger
initial explosion of parallel emerge jobs, but it spreads out very
nicely...I may have to increase the -j parameter in MAKEOPTS. I'm also not
certain if
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 17:36:08 +0100, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
Neil, you run a core-i7-2600 as well ... what is your current
best-practise with that CPU, concerning the values of N and -l ... ?
With the cooling system I currently have, I don't like to push it too
much (a new watercooler
Am 29.11.2011 12:08, schrieb Neil Bothwick:
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 17:36:08 +0100, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
Neil, you run a core-i7-2600 as well ... what is your current
best-practise with that CPU, concerning the values of N and -l
... ?
With the cooling system I currently have, I don't
On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 14:47:49 +0100, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
With the cooling system I currently have, I don't like to push it
too much (a new watercooler should arrive tomorrow), but
MAKEOPTS=-j16 -l10 appears to be a definite improvement over the
old -j8 with no -l.
I have it in
Am 29.11.2011 16:39, schrieb Neil Bothwick:
The trouble with --load-average in emerge is that it is only
checked as each ebuild is about to start, so you get the load
explosion mentioned previously when many ebuilds start and once
and then get into their compile phases. I'm using --jobs, with
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 12:26:48 +0700, Pandu Poluan wrote:
Just in case anyone wonders where the multiplier 1.6 comes from:
There had been a discussion somewhere (I forgot where exactly, sorry)
about load numbers. The final conclusion was that the ideal load number
for today's processors is
On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 23:34:14 -0500, Michael Mol wrote:
The problem I found with that is the ebuilds load the system lightly
to start with, before they enter the compile phase, to portage
starts dozens of parallel ebuilds, then the system gets completely
bogged down when they start
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 16:27, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 12:26:48 +0700, Pandu Poluan wrote:
Just in case anyone wonders where the multiplier 1.6 comes from:
There had been a discussion somewhere (I forgot where exactly, sorry)
about load numbers. The final
Hi there
2011/11/28 Pandu Poluan pa...@poluan.info:
...
TL;DR : 2*N for non-hyperthreaded cores, N for hyperthreaded cores.
(Disclaimer: Above is my pure speculation. Feel free to debunk it
based on your tests (: )
Rgds,
So with a 6 core Phenom it would look like this:
MAKEOPTS=-j 12 -l
2011/11/28 Jorge Martínez López jorg...@gmail.com:
Hi there
2011/11/28 Pandu Poluan pa...@poluan.info:
...
TL;DR : 2*N for non-hyperthreaded cores, N for hyperthreaded cores.
(Disclaimer: Above is my pure speculation. Feel free to debunk it
based on your tests (: )
Rgds,
So with a 6
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 16:27, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 23:34:14 -0500, Michael Mol wrote:
The problem I found with that is the ebuilds load the system lightly
to start with, before they enter the compile phase, to portage
starts dozens of parallel
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Pandu Poluan pa...@poluan.info wrote:
Won't file a bug report, though. I have a feeling that my bug report re:
emerge failure will be marked WONTFIX thanks to the 'ricer special' CFLAGS
The CFLAGS you showed me weren't any more ricer than -O2
-march=native. (I
Am 28.11.2011 10:27, schrieb Neil Bothwick:
From the description, it should do just that, there may still be
dozens of ebuilds in progress, but only the first few will actually
start compiling. Adding it now. It should also helps when there are
multiple emerge processes running, my desktop
On Nov 28, 2011 10:38 PM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Pandu Poluan pa...@poluan.info wrote:
Won't file a bug report, though. I have a feeling that my bug report re:
emerge failure will be marked WONTFIX thanks to the 'ricer special'
CFLAGS
The
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 8:46 AM, Pandu Poluan pa...@poluan.info wrote:
On Nov 28, 2011 10:38 PM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Pandu Poluan pa...@poluan.info wrote:
Won't file a bug report, though. I have a feeling that my bug report re:
emerge
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Mark Knecht markkne...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 8:46 AM, Pandu Poluan pa...@poluan.info wrote:
On Nov 28, 2011 10:38 PM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Pandu Poluan pa...@poluan.info wrote:
Won't file
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Mark Knecht markkne...@gmail.com wrote:
I wonder if someone in this thread will help me understand the term
'ricer'. The only origin I know of this term, from the car world, is
really pretty racist, so I wonder if there isn't a more genteel origin
I simply
Am 28.11.2011 17:54, schrieb Mark Knecht:
I wonder if someone in this thread will help me understand the term
'ricer'. The only origin I know of this term, from the car world, is
really pretty racist, so I wonder if there isn't a more genteel origin
I simply cannot find using Google?
Maybe
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Pandu Poluan pa...@poluan.info wrote:
On Nov 28, 2011 10:38 PM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Pandu Poluan pa...@poluan.info wrote:
Won't file a bug report, though. I have a feeling that my bug report re:
emerge
On 11/28/2011 9:28 AM, James Wall wrote:
I wonder if someone in this thread will help me understand the term
'ricer'. The only origin I know of this term, from the car world, is
really pretty racist, so I wonder if there isn't a more genteel origin
I simply cannot find using Google?
- Mark
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Paul Hartman
paul.hartman+gen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Mark Knecht markkne...@gmail.com wrote:
I wonder if someone in this thread will help me understand the term
'ricer'. The only origin I know of this term, from the car world, is
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 10:00 AM, kashani kashani-l...@badapple.net wrote:
On 11/28/2011 9:28 AM, James Wall wrote:
I wonder if someone in this thread will help me understand the term
'ricer'. The only origin I know of this term, from the car world, is
really pretty racist, so I wonder if
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 12:26 AM, Pandu Poluan pa...@poluan.info wrote:
On Nov 28, 2011 11:32 AM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
Unfortunately, striving for 2*N will inadvertently result in short bursts of
2*N, and this potentially induce a stall, which will be very costly. 1.8*N
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 12:26 AM, Pandu Poluan pa...@poluan.info wrote:
[snip]
FWIW, I strongly suspect that N should be your number of *logical*
cores, not your number of physical cores. I believe most of the
overhead
Am 28.11.2011 18:56, schrieb Michael Mol:
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Pandu Poluan pa...@poluan.info wrote:
On Nov 28, 2011 10:38 PM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Pandu Poluan pa...@poluan.info wrote:
Won't file a bug report, though. I have a
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Florian Philipp li...@binarywings.net wrote:
Am 28.11.2011 18:56, schrieb Michael Mol:
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Pandu Poluan pa...@poluan.info wrote:
No, you've got some ugly flags in there. -fexcess-precision and
-funsafe-math-optimizations, in
On Nov 29, 2011 2:02 AM, Florian Philipp li...@binarywings.net wrote:
Am 28.11.2011 18:56, schrieb Michael Mol:
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Pandu Poluan pa...@poluan.info
wrote:
On Nov 28, 2011 10:38 PM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Pandu
Am 28.11.2011 20:14, schrieb Michael Mol:
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Florian Philipp li...@binarywings.net
wrote:
Am 28.11.2011 18:56, schrieb Michael Mol:
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Pandu Poluan pa...@poluan.info wrote:
No, you've got some ugly flags in there.
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Pandu Poluan pa...@poluan.info wrote:
On Nov 29, 2011 2:02 AM, Florian Philipp li...@binarywings.net wrote:
Am 28.11.2011 18:56, schrieb Michael Mol:
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Pandu Poluan pa...@poluan.info
wrote:
On Nov 28, 2011 10:38 PM, Michael
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Florian Philipp li...@binarywings.net wrote:
Am 28.11.2011 20:14, schrieb Michael Mol:
Upstream devs might take issue with them, but I'm still not sure they
should affect bug reports of build-time failures. I would *hope*
upstream gcc is doing tests on its own
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm currently timing
MAKEOPTS=-j16 -l13
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS=--jobs --load-average=13
with 493 packages (base plus X plus XFCE and chromium, and, of course,
USE flags), but I'll start another timed run with
MAKEOPTS=-j16
On Nov 29, 2011 2:53 AM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Pandu Poluan pa...@poluan.info wrote:
I use Intel boxes, unfortunately.
Are you using a 64-bit x86-derived system? Same difference in this
context. AMD hit the market with a good 64-bit
On Saturday 26 Nov 2011 15:22:15 Michael Mol wrote:
I just wanted to share an experience I had today with optimizing parallel
builds after discovering -l for Make...
I've got a little more tweaking I still want to do, but this is pretty
awesome...
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 4:27 AM, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday 26 Nov 2011 15:22:15 Michael Mol wrote:
I just wanted to share an experience I had today with optimizing parallel
builds after discovering -l for Make...
I've got a little more tweaking I still want to do, but
Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday 26 Nov 2011 15:22:15 Michael Mol wrote:
I just wanted to share an experience I had today with optimizing parallel
builds after discovering -l for Make...
I've got a little more tweaking I still want to do, but this is pretty
awesome...
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 5:39 AM, cov...@ccs.covici.com wrote:
Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday 26 Nov 2011 15:22:15 Michael Mol wrote:
I just wanted to share an experience I had today with optimizing parallel
builds after discovering -l for Make...
I've got a little
cov...@ccs.covici.com wrote:
Mickmichaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday 26 Nov 2011 15:22:15 Michael Mol wrote:
I just wanted to share an experience I had today with optimizing parallel
builds after discovering -l for Make...
I've got a little more tweaking I still want to do, but
Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
cov...@ccs.covici.com wrote:
Mickmichaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday 26 Nov 2011 15:22:15 Michael Mol wrote:
I just wanted to share an experience I had today with optimizing parallel
builds after discovering -l for Make...
I've got a
cov...@ccs.covici.com wrote:
Dalerdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
cov...@ccs.covici.com wrote:
Mickmichaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday 26 Nov 2011 15:22:15 Michael Mol wrote:
I just wanted to share an experience I had today with optimizing parallel
builds after discovering -l for
Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
cov...@ccs.covici.com wrote:
Dalerdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
cov...@ccs.covici.com wrote:
Mickmichaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday 26 Nov 2011 15:22:15 Michael Mol wrote:
I just wanted to share an experience I had today with optimizing
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 5:58 AM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
cov...@ccs.covici.com wrote:
Mickmichaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday 26 Nov 2011 15:22:15 Michael Mol wrote:
I just wanted to share an experience I had today with optimizing
parallel
builds after discovering -l
Michael Mol wrote:
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 5:58 AM, Dalerdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
cov...@ccs.covici.com wrote:
Mickmichaelkintz...@gmail.comwrote:
On Saturday 26 Nov 2011 15:22:15 Michael Mol wrote:
I just wanted to share an experience I had today with optimizing
parallel
builds
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Michael Mol wrote:
Oh! I hadn't realized there was an update to portage that changed
that. Missed it on my main box, I suppose.
You have got to crawl out of the hole every once in a while. It was on -dev
then got moved over
Am 26.11.2011 16:22, schrieb Michael Mol:
parallel builds
Sweet, I didn't even know about emerges -j option to do parallel builds.
Thx for sharing, I am sure I'll use this in the feature
On Nov 28, 2011 12:29 AM, Michael Hampicke gentoo-u...@hadt.biz wrote:
Am 26.11.2011 16:22, schrieb Michael Mol:
parallel builds
Sweet, I didn't even know about emerges -j option to do parallel builds.
Thx for sharing, I am sure I'll use this in the feature
emerge -j will be useful if
On Nov 27, 2011 5:12 PM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
I figure that the optimal number of simultaneous CPU-consuming
processes is going to be the number of CPU cores, plus enough to keep
the CPU occupied while others are blocked on I/O. That's the same
reasoning that drives the
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Pandu Poluan pa...@poluan.info wrote:
On Nov 27, 2011 5:12 PM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
Here's my experience:
I always experience emerge failures on my Gentoo VMs if I use MAKEOPTS=-j3.
Not all packages, but many. Including, IIRC, glibc
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
I'll steal your 1.6 factor, and give:
MAKEOPTS=-j 2*N -l 1.6*N)
PORTAGE_DEFAULT_OPTS=--jobs --load-average1.6*N
a try.
Ah. Which file does PORTAGE_DEFAULT_OPTS go in? It doesn't appear to
have an impact in
Michael Mol writes:
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
I'll steal your 1.6 factor, and give:
MAKEOPTS=-j 2*N -l 1.6*N)
PORTAGE_DEFAULT_OPTS=--jobs --load-average1.6*N
a try.
Ah. Which file does PORTAGE_DEFAULT_OPTS go in? It doesn't appear to
On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 15:16:33 -0500
Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
My day job is C++ on Windows[1],
[1] Well, for most of this year, my task list has been more
PHP-oriented, but I'm still on tap for our C++ work.
You have my deepest, deepest, sympathies.
Gotta pay the rent
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 7:22 AM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
I just wanted to share an experience I had today with optimizing parallel
builds after discovering -l for Make...
I've got a little more tweaking I still want to do, but this is pretty
awesome...
Mark Knecht wrote:
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 7:22 AM, Michael Molmike...@gmail.com wrote:
I just wanted to share an experience I had today with optimizing parallel
builds after discovering -l for Make...
I've got a little more tweaking I still want to do, but this is pretty
awesome...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 00:56:17 +0700, Pandu Poluan wrote:
I don't know where the 'blame' lies, but I've found myself
standardizing on MAKEOPTS=-j3, and PORTAGE_DEFAULT_OPTS=--jobs
--load-average=1.6*num_of_vCPU
(Yes, no explicit number of jobs. The newer portages are smart enough to
keep
On Nov 28, 2011 3:55 AM, Alex Schuster wo...@wonkology.org wrote:
Michael Mol writes:
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
I'll steal your 1.6 factor, and give:
MAKEOPTS=-j 2*N -l 1.6*N)
PORTAGE_DEFAULT_OPTS=--jobs --load-average1.6*N
a try.
On Nov 28, 2011 6:24 AM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 00:56:17 +0700, Pandu Poluan wrote:
I don't know where the 'blame' lies, but I've found myself
standardizing on MAKEOPTS=-j3, and PORTAGE_DEFAULT_OPTS=--jobs
--load-average=1.6*num_of_vCPU
(Yes, no
On Nov 28, 2011 3:21 AM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Pandu Poluan pa...@poluan.info wrote:
On Nov 27, 2011 5:12 PM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
Here's my experience:
I always experience emerge failures on my Gentoo VMs if I
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Mark Knecht markkne...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 7:22 AM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
I just wanted to share an experience I had today with optimizing parallel
builds after discovering -l for Make...
I've got a little more tweaking I
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 00:56:17 +0700, Pandu Poluan wrote:
I don't know where the 'blame' lies, but I've found myself
standardizing on MAKEOPTS=-j3, and PORTAGE_DEFAULT_OPTS=--jobs
--load-average=1.6*num_of_vCPU
(Yes, no
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Pandu Poluan pa...@poluan.info wrote:
On Nov 28, 2011 6:24 AM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 00:56:17 +0700, Pandu Poluan wrote:
I don't know where the 'blame' lies, but I've found myself
standardizing on MAKEOPTS=-j3, and
On Nov 28, 2011 11:38 AM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Pandu Poluan pa...@poluan.info wrote:
On Nov 28, 2011 6:24 AM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 00:56:17 +0700, Pandu Poluan wrote:
I don't know where the
On Nov 28, 2011 11:32 AM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
- 8 snip
MAKEOPTS would be -j16, -l10. (Which actually goes up to about 12 or
13 based on that N*1.6 behavior)
- 8 snip
Just in case anyone wonders where the multiplier 1.6 comes from:
There had been a discussion
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 12:13 AM, Pandu Poluan pa...@poluan.info wrote:
On Nov 28, 2011 11:38 AM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Pandu Poluan pa...@poluan.info wrote:
On Nov 28, 2011 6:24 AM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 8:06 PM, Pandu Poluan pa...@poluan.info wrote:
On Nov 28, 2011 3:21 AM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Pandu Poluan pa...@poluan.info wrote:
[snip]
Sweet; I didn't know about Portage's --load-average; I'll definitely
switch to
On Nov 28, 2011 12:35 PM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 8:06 PM, Pandu Poluan pa...@poluan.info wrote:
On Nov 28, 2011 3:21 AM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Pandu Poluan pa...@poluan.info
wrote:
[snip]
Sweet; I
I just wanted to share an experience I had today with optimizing parallel
builds after discovering -l for Make...
I've got a little more tweaking I still want to do, but this is pretty
awesome...
http://funnybutnot.wordpress.com/2011/11/26/optimizing-parallel-builds/
ZZ
Michael Mol writes:
http://funnybutnot.wordpress.com/2011/11/26/optimizing-parallel-builds/
404, but http://funnybutnot.wordpress.com/2011/11/26/ seems to work.
Wonko
Am 26.11.2011 16:22, schrieb Michael Mol:
I just wanted to share an experience I had today with optimizing
parallel builds after discovering -l for Make...
I've got a little more tweaking I still want to do, but this is pretty
awesome...
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Alex Schuster wo...@wonkology.org wrote:
Michael Mol writes:
http://funnybutnot.wordpress.com/2011/11/26/optimizing-parallel-builds/
404, but http://funnybutnot.wordpress.com/2011/11/26/ seems to work.
Should work now. Somehow, I triggered WP's schedule a
Am 26.11.2011 16:34, schrieb Alex Schuster:
Michael Mol writes:
http://funnybutnot.wordpress.com/2011/11/26/optimizing-parallel-builds/
404, but http://funnybutnot.wordpress.com/2011/11/26/ seems to work.
Yes, got it now as well.
Thanks for quoting me, Michael ... but I also googled that
72 matches
Mail list logo
