Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!lll-crg.llnl.gov!brooks
From: brooks@lll-crg.llnl.gov (Eugene D. Brooks III)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Single/Multi Tasking position summary (was Re: Single tasking)
Message-ID: <1408@lll-lcc.aRpA>
Date: 30 Dec 87 23:52:07 GMT
References: <60@amelia.nas.nasa.gov> <18079@bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Sender: usenet@lll-lcc.aRpA
Reply-To: brooks@lll-crg.llnl.gov.UUCP (Eugene D. Brooks III)
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Lines: 13

In article <18079@bu-cs.BU.EDU> bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) writes:
>
>* I use slightly more processes than CPUs on makes because I find the
>performance continues to improve a little beyond NPROCS=NCPUS.  I
>assume this is due to some processes always being in I/O wait. See all
>the neat things about parallelism we can begin to form intuitions
>about, if we explore it.

I use twice as many processes as available cpus for parallel makes on
the Sequent, if the load average is less than 2 the machine just
isn't being worked hard enough! :-)

P.S.  Damn that parallel make anyway, it doesn't give me enough time
to go get my coffee.