Re: Distributed Builds
Re: Distributed Builds
- Subject: Re: Distributed Builds
- From: Dix Lorenz <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 17:32:18 +0100
On 14.03.2005, at 16:57, Thomas Davie wrote:
The only thing that it might be able to do is go "oh... I've
finished building all my stuff and I'm waiting on my partners, I
might as well see if I can beat them to the punch" and start
compiling something another box had been told to build.
I've thought about that quite often too, but unless your local
machine is a lot faster you won't win a lot. The remote already has
all the precompilation done already anyway and has been working on it
already. And that time is probably more than what the network adds
when you get the results, so there isn't much to gain...
But if your machine can't run two compiles in a row faster than
running one compile and shipping the other one out, then you don't
want it to be forced to run two compiles in a row – that negates your
assertion that it's faster to run both compiles on your local machine.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. In this scenario there were
quite a few files to build so every machine got its part of the work
and now the local machine is finished and waiting for some remote
machine. All I am saying is that at this point the remote machine(s)
has/have already started compiling the missing file(s) and assuming the
machines have comparable speeds there is no point in starting local too
because the local machine has no way of catching up, even counting that
the remote result has to transfer back to the local machine.
Just as an aside: Actually there is a bug in gcc which some part of my
code hits which leads to abnormal compile times for 1 certain file (10
mins) and in that case my local machine would be able to catch up. But
the solution here is of course to fix the compiler...
I don't care so much about when compiling lots of files, then the
fastest machine will get the most work done anyway. It's when I am
compiling one (or two) files that local compiling would be faster. It
saves a few MB of network traffic, the remote machine might be busy
doing something else... I would think most of the time and in most
setups if you are compiling only one or two files it is faster to do it
locally and as it also won't hurt if you compile a lot of files I'd say
the local machine should get first shot. Also it needs almost no
change, just some way of setting the order in which machines are
used...
Dix
_______________________________________________
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