>If your hard drive throughput is faster than your CPU, then you are correct and it does not make any >sense. >For example, if you are using a 25 MHz 68030 and a 15,000 rpm 8 GB cache Seagate drive connected >through SCSI-3, the drive is probably able to completely feed the CPU. >However, if your hard drive throughput is slower than your CPU, then -j makes sense.> >For example, if your CPU is a single core Pentium 4 at 3.6 GHz, and your hard drive is any ATA connected >IDE drive, then -j would help, since the CPU would have many spare cycles to burn while waiting for the >hard drive to feed it, so it could be busy working on another compiler concurrently. I test with a core 2 and -j2 worked fine.... But I still do not know why it does not work on p4. Any way.... thanks John (Eljay) Love-Jensen wrote: > > Hi mahmoodn, > >> I have single core, P4. So I think -j does not make any sense. Is it >> right? > > If your hard drive throughput is faster than your CPU, then you are > correct and it does not make any sense. > > For example, if you are using a 25 MHz 68030 and a 15,000 rpm 8 GB cache > Seagate drive connected through SCSI-3, the drive is probably able to > completely feed the CPU. > > However, if your hard drive throughput is slower than your CPU, then -j > makes sense. > > For example, if your CPU is a single core Pentium 4 at 3.6 GHz, and your > hard drive is any ATA connected IDE drive, then -j would help, since the > CPU would have many spare cycles to burn while waiting for the hard drive > to feed it, so it could be busy working on another compiler concurrently. > > HTH, > --Eljay > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/reduce-compilation-times--tf4880765.html#a14042402 Sent from the gcc - Help mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
