From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vincent Legoll Subject: Re: guix pull parallelism Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2016 13:11:12 +0200 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40703) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bYWqR-0006Wt-4T for help-guix@gnu.org; Sat, 13 Aug 2016 07:11:16 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bYWqP-00027P-7U for help-guix@gnu.org; Sat, 13 Aug 2016 07:11:14 -0400 Received: from mail-qt0-x233.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::233]:33292) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bYWqP-00027L-2S for help-guix@gnu.org; Sat, 13 Aug 2016 07:11:13 -0400 Received: by mail-qt0-x233.google.com with SMTP id w38so4243126qtb.0 for ; Sat, 13 Aug 2016 04:11:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-guix-bounces+gcggh-help-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Help-Guix" To: help-guix Hello > If it had been ~100% or ~300% I would not have asked, but that > 200% looks wrong one (missed a core) way or the other (no > parallelism)... OK I looked more into this, and now I'm seeing parts that are 1 CPU, but the bulk is between 250% and 280%, so I think it's OK for a 3 CPU VM. Disregard my previous observations. -- Vincent Legoll