On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 4:39 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:26:19 -0700
> > From: tom honermann
> > 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-
> Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:26:19 -0700
> From: tom honermann
> 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 testing
> > it I
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 it
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 5:41 PM, Paul Smith 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 it's firs
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
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
ou
