My Grizzly G0602 Lathe

robertspark wrote:

Code:

make -j8

is actually the number of parallel operations not the number of simultaneous "files".... and the -j switch must correspond to your number of processors your hardware has.... -j8 would be for an 8 core processor....

you should run

Code:

nproc

(number of processors)

before "make -j8"

or the cover all syntax would be

Code:

make -j$(nproc)

that way it will always run the right number of parallel operations for your specific hardware (should you be lucky enough to have a 24 core processor....)
or like me a 2 core...

Hmm, I just had to go into my office to run nproc and the answer was 4.
I knew J was tied to the number of processors but did not know how to check.
So I don't think its an issue if the number exceeds the number of processors.
I do know from past experience it makes a massive difference to compile time.

Rod, I don't know, but it may result in jobs being placed in a partial complete que (I don't know enough about linux)

there is a bit of a discussion here, but the theory goes that if you've got a 4 lane motorway (freeway / highway) don't try to treat it as an 8 lane one....

unix.stackexchange.com/questions/208568/...ass-to-make-j-option

If you use the following string it should always sort its self out

or else in theory you could just load up a number like -j200 and let it do its thing with the build.

just probably a useful tip to all noobs to just use the make -j$(nproc) string

if its good enough for Linus Torvalds to run -j32 with his 32 core rig, it's good enough for me to run mine with just the right number of cores as to what I can afford + require.
linux.slashdot.org/story/20/05/25/020240...n-on-his-personal-pc
he was obviously running an 8 core previously and 32 core therefore being 4x faster (more lanes)

Pretty sure you can use a bigger number as it will use what is available, using smaller numbers will make the compile time much longer.
The best way is to check and use the right number as mentioned above by Robert.

The RAM use is approximately proportional to the number of jobs. I usually use a number of jobs equal to the number of cores plus one - this increases the chance that there are always a job for each core (a job can be waiting for IO for example and thus not be possible to schedule to the cpu).

But as far as I understand, the only harm in using "too many" jobs is if you don't have enough RAM. Swapping kills the performance for sure!

Well the lathe is on it's stand. It's far from it's cnc version but one step closer. After picking the thing up with an engine crane
I realized their needs to be better lifting points on the machine . The G0602 is exceedingly heavy near it's spindle.
I guess I will have to drill and tap some holes for a decent mounting point. Hopefully I will have better luck then Russtuff
drilling and tapping the castings . I do have a quick video of the Lathe on it's stand.

Buy a sling. If you sling them around the chuck and through the web (with a short piece of pipe through the webbing, you can pick a lathe up and then put it down again to balance the load. When you pick it up again, it will be balanced. Its a very handy trick my lathe supplier told me once.

Also, make sure you bolt the stand down to the floor before doing anything. I managed to tip a 280kg over as they are not well balanced on the stand. It could have killed me! I then built my own stand with removable wheels.

On Page 5 of this thread about my shed, the drama started!
www.homemodelenginemachinist.com/threads...s-aussie-shed.19885/