[ Date Index ]
[ Thread Index ]
[ <= Previous by date /
thread ]
[ Next by date /
thread => ]
Re: [LUG] make -jn
- To: Devon/Cornwall GNU LUG <list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [LUG] make -jn
- From: simon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 00:43:14 +0300
- Delivered-to: dclug@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dcglug.org.uk; s=1412586362; h=Sender:Content-Type:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:Reply-To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:To:From; bh=e3K4nY6Ab8eWd9k3+5VZZIpPmyHLyy22YlJDmjNXge0=; b=Nec2jH/RXJseY9V0WIe6k0suEa7zVXvVSjSfb4eo3mo02A6Sanm1UXl5GlNTFyrBa6EZzpGPRgMWyptJ+zLaJhsw7+9jWJSbDfzHhbtlpEumT3rfmX5PmhlH8DffPPWfDfSms8qcCRVx+eDkcmaQzIFN5QA+TBEVYbm2A+X09II=;
Tom,
Performance will always depend on the specifics of any case. E.g whatever make is doing.
Compilation on general purposes hardware is usually CPU bound, so setting jobs to number of cores is a minimum. Adding more is unlikely to make compilation much faster, but it won't hurt.
Benchmarks I found online confirm the result you would expect from CPU bound workload.
--
The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG
http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list
FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq
