[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: convert-ly question

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: convert-ly question
Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 22:02:17 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4.50 (gnu/linux)

Martin Tarenskeen <address@hidden> writes:

> On Sun, 18 May 2014, Graham King wrote:
>>  On Sun, 18 May 2014 08:38:09 +0200 (CEST) Martin Tarenskeen wrote:
>> >  Luckily I don't need this kind of commandline virtuosity. I
>>        think I
>> >  can do what I need with one of the first and easiest
>>        suggestions
>> > >  convert-ly -e **/*.ly
>>  One more tidbit of painfully-gained experience in this area:  If using a
>>  solution that walks the directory tree, starting convert-ly processes, it's
>>  important to do it in a way that limits the number of concurrent invocations
>>  of convert-ly.  I've managed to wedge OSX by using a tool that failed to do
>>  that :(
> Would this be safer?
> ls **/*.ly | while read f; do -e "${f}"; done

No.  convert-ly -e **/*.ly starts just one process anyway.

> Which leads me to another Linux commandline topic:
> Which would be faster, on a machine with a multicore cpu and enough RAM?
> lilypond
> lilypond & lilypond & lilypond & lilypond
> lilypond && lilypond && lilypond.c && lilypond
> Thinking of it, I can test this myself.

lilypond -djob-count=4

A good rule of thumb is one more job than CPU cores.  That should be
enough to saturate.

David Kastrup

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]