• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: Distributed build overhead and Mac Mini vs XServe pricing
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Distributed build overhead and Mac Mini vs XServe pricing


  • Subject: Re: Distributed build overhead and Mac Mini vs XServe pricing
  • From: Scott Tooker <email@hidden>
  • Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:19:17 -0800


On Jan 17, 2005, at 8:55 AM, Travis Heppe wrote:



Message: 3
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 11:22:05 -0800
From: Scott Tooker <email@hidden>
Subject: Re: Distributed build overhead and Mac Mini vs XServe pricing
[...]
The local machine needs to perform all preprocessing for the remote build servers, so 6 remote builders will place more strain on the local machine than 2 remote builders.


Yep - I've found that a slow machine doing the 'coordination' can have a overall build performance improved if it does NOT include itself in the distributed build farm but rather is just 'running the build'.
Yeah, I've actually changed this for the next version of Xcode so you can't have the local machine participate by default.
could you clarify that? Did you mean that the local machine will not participate by default, but there is a setting to flip it on? Or did you really mean that it really can't participate?

The plan is to not allow the local machine to actually compile (remember the local machine still does the preprocessing, copying, and linking) if it is set up as a remote builder. However, there is a default to override this behavior and allow the local machine to also act as a remote builder.


In the long run, we'd like to lessen the difference between a local compilation and a remote compilation so we can be more flexible in who is doing what.


How about the other end of the spectrum? If you have just one extra machine that
is idle and set it up as a "build farm", will your local machine still not
participate by default? It seems that the best policy for the local machine
would be to have a separate process accepting build jobs, but on a much lower priority than the management process.

With the default you could hack this up today, but currently there is no notion of "where" the request is coming from.


Scott


-Travis


_______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Xcode-users mailing list (email@hidden) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden




_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Xcode-users mailing list      (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden


  • Follow-Ups:
    • Re: Distributed build overhead and Mac Mini vs XServe pricing
      • From: Travis Heppe <email@hidden>
References: 
 >Re: Distributed build overhead and Mac Mini vs XServe pricing (From: Travis Heppe <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: adding frameworks
  • Next by Date: Re: Carbon with UNIX
  • Previous by thread: Re: Distributed build overhead and Mac Mini vs XServe pricing
  • Next by thread: Re: Distributed build overhead and Mac Mini vs XServe pricing
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread