Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!know!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!bu.edu!snorkelwacker!paperboy!meissner From: meissner@osf.org (Michael Meissner) Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals Subject: Re: RAM disk. Message-ID: Date: 10 Oct 90 17:30:12 GMT References: <18560@rpp386.cactus.org> <143359@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <18574@rpp386.cactus.org> <1850@necisa.ho.necisa.oz> <1990Oct10.152556.9367@canterbury.ac.nz> Sender: news@OSF.ORG Organization: Open Software Foundation Lines: 24 In-reply-to: cosc038@canterbury.ac.nz's message of 10 Oct 90 06:54:15 GMT In article <1990Oct10.152556.9367@canterbury.ac.nz> cosc038@canterbury.ac.nz writes: | We have seen something similar here in the Department. Ordinarily | the various processes involved in doing a cc(1) communicate using files | in /tmp. There is a -pipe option which connects the cc(1) processes | directly using pipes, with no need for /tmp files. The cc(1) man page | comments that the -pipe option is "Very CPU intensive". We have found | though that when a server is heavily loaded compiles run MUCH more | quickly on clients if the -pipe option is used. I would put this | down to the fact that when the -pipe option is used a lot less | synchronous NFS writes to /tmp are required. I don't think -pipe in general is more CPU intensive, but rather memory intensive, in that you should have enough memory to run both the compiler and assembler simulataneously without thrashing. The -pipe option also wins on a multiprocessor where the assembler and compiler can run on separate CPU's. -- Michael Meissner email: meissner@osf.org phone: 617-621-8861 Open Software Foundation, 11 Cambridge Center, Cambridge, MA, 02142 Do apple growers tell their kids money doesn't grow on bushes?