![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Sat, 5 Jan 2002 09:57:17 -0800 Nicholas Knight <nknight@pocketinet.com> wrote: > On Saturday 05 January 2002 07:19 am, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote: > > On Fri, 4 Jan 2002 16:42:43 -0800 > > > > Nicholas Knight <nknight@pocketinet.com> wrote: > > > I have absilutely no trouble reproducing on an 800MHz Athlon with > > > 256MB RAM/256MB swap on 2.4.17 > > > > The simple question is: is the RAM sufficient at all to spawn such a > > lot of cc processes? In my setup I get around 1000 concurrently > > working during -j. This sounds like a real problem for 256/256, or > > not? > > Matter of scale, did you try a full kernel build with make -j bzImage > using whatever your normal config is? Yes, of course, and it works at my side. Worked with 1GB RAM/256MB swap, works now with 2GB RAM/256MB swap on stock 2.4.17. > I still believe this is an innappropriate test, sure if you have tons > of RAM and swap it may eventualy complete I never saw it not completing on my box with 2.4.17, regardless of what I do in the mean time (writing mails or the like). Of course system performance drops somehow down when load reaches about 150, but I think this can be expected ;-) Regards, Stephan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:15 [W:0.199 / U:0.080 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||