Re: Distributed Builds
Re: Distributed Builds
- Subject: Re: Distributed Builds
- From: Thomas Davie <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 17:39:37 +0000
On Mar 14, 2005, at 4:32 PM, Dix Lorenz wrote:
On 14.03.2005, at 16:57, Thomas Davie wrote:
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...
That's exactly my point - if you're compiling lots of files then you
don't care, it doesn't matter if you spend a little bit of CPU
duplicating effort at the end. What does matter is if you have only 2
files to compile, and you would normally say, I'll build the first one,
the second one gets shipped off. You make the assertion that it would
be faster to compile both files locally rather than ship one off. If
this is the case, then we can ship one off, and compile one locally,
when that finishes, compile the one we shipped off locally... If it
finishes first, then woo yay we've cut compile time, if it doesn't
finish first then we would have been faster distributing it anyway.
Bob
_______________________________________________
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