[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 convert.ly -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 a.ly b.ly c.ly d.ly
> lilypond a.ly & lilypond b.ly & lilypond c.ly & lilypond d.ly
> lilypond a.ly && lilypond b.ly && lilypond.c && lilypond d.ly
>
> Thinking of it, I can test this myself.
lilypond -djob-count=4 a.ly b.ly c.ly d.ly
A good rule of thumb is one more job than CPU cores. That should be
enough to saturate.
--
David Kastrup
- Re: convert-ly question, (continued)
Re: convert-ly question, Patrick or Cynthia Karl, 2014/05/17
Re: convert-ly question, Martin Tarenskeen, 2014/05/18
- Re: convert-ly question,
David Kastrup <=