trafodion-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Amanda Moran <amanda.mo...@esgyn.com>
Subject Re: Parallel Make Failures
Date Mon, 07 Mar 2016 19:05:52 GMT
On redhat 7.1 this command still works:

[ec2-user@ip-10-0-0-175 ~]$ cat /etc/redhat-release
Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 7.1 (Maipo)

[ec2-user@ip-10-0-0-175 ~]$ grep processor /proc/cpuinfo | wc -l
4


On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Steve Varnau <steve.varnau@esgyn.com> wrote:

> > It seems that the parallel make fails on 8 GB machines.
>
> I think your first sentence overstates the determinism of the problem a
> bit.
> I ran a normal, default build on 8GB machine last week and had no problem.
> There must be an environmental problem, but I don't think we fully
> understand it yet.
>
> The aggressiveness of the make parallelism is set in core/sqf/sqenvcom.sh.
> It sets the parallel factor based on how many CPUs are on your machine:
>
> # Set default build parallelism
> # Can be overridden on make commandline
> cpucnt=$(grep processor /proc/cpuinfo | wc -l)
> #     no number means unlimited, and will swamp the system
> export MAKEFLAGS="-j$cpucnt"
>
> If that calculation is wrong, maybe that could cause a problem.
>
> --Steve
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gunnar Tapper [mailto:tapper.gunnar@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Monday, March 7, 2016 9:35 AM
> > To: dev@trafodion.incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Parallel Make Failures
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > It seems that the parallel make fails on 8 GB machines. At least, Nitin
> > and
> > I both ran into make failures that did not appear when running serial
> > make.
> > I've also seen similar failures when building the code on 12 GB machines.
> >
> > Based on previous discussions, the Trafodion Contributor Guide recommends
> > rerunning make a few times if running issues.
> >
> > I most wonder if there's a way to reduce the aggressiveness of the make
> in
> > general. Could we, for example, come up with a table that correlates
> > system
> > size to define the -l option or something similar?
> >
> > --
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Gunnar
> > *If you think you can you can, if you think you can't you're right.*
>



-- 
Thanks,

Amanda Moran

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message