Re: [bug #52697] More varieties to -j switch

[Edward Welbourne]

(Sorry if I'm a fortnight late to the party and this has been said
already; I can't see it in my in-box, but that may just be because it's
crowded following a fortnight off ...)

> Maybe I forgot to make clear what the main problem is: the -j switch
> takes not care about ram and this is becoming more and more the
> important limit

That sounds more like you need an orthogonal control, just as -l
controls load, rather than a variant on -j; a limit on RAM use that
would preclude starting new jobs if more than some specified amount of
(or perhaps fraction of available) RAM is in use.

Given that you mention swapping as a symptom, have you, at least, tried
using -l to limit the load ?  Does that mitigate your problems at all ?

        Eddy.