[Scons-users] Prioritization of builds

[William Blevins]

It looks like ModelSim does provide a FlexNet (previously FlexLM) license
solution. It might be worth investigating. If you are using hardware
security key, I am surprised that you cannot run more than one instance. I
always thought the point was to tie to software to a particular machine...

On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Brian Cody <brian.j.cody at gmail.com> wrote:

> The tool in question is Modelsim. We have license dongles--no server. If
> Modelsim is currently running a simulation on a given computer and another
> instance is started on the same computer, the command will fail with an
> error return status.
>
> Side effect seemed to be appropriate in this case!
> On Jan 15, 2016 10:40 PM, "Bill Deegan" <bill at baddogconsulting.com> wrote:
>
>> Most flexlm licensed tools can enable this. Though it's up to the
>> developer to do so.
>> (I've deployed flexlm at a number of clients for their software licensing
>> (on the software producer side))
>>
>> -Bill
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 5:57 PM, William Blevins <wblevins001 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I have used tools like this before and did not require a side-effect
>>> file. For example, Intel compilers require a license server. Even with a
>>> single floating license, I can run jobs in parallel without an issue
>>> because license requests are queued by the license server, so this is
>>> handled outside of SCons. What tool are you using?
>>>
>>> V/R,
>>> William
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 6:02 PM, Brian Cody <brian.j.cody at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello fellow sconsians,
>>>>
>>>> Let's say I have 1000 targets to build. There are some dependencies
>>>> between them but over all there's a considerable amount of parallelism
>>>> possible. Now let's say 10 of those targets require the use of a licensed
>>>> tool which can only run one at a time. I use a side effect to enforce that
>>>> with those 10 targets. I typically run with -j12 or so, one for each
>>>> virtual core available. This works, and I'm happy.
>>>>
>>>> Except.. Those 10 builds I mentioned just happen to be very slow. The
>>>> final target built will always be one of those ten. That's fine. However,
>>>> the build will take much longer than necessary if it doesn't happen to
>>>> start building those targets early. And doing that would require that their
>>>> dependencies are also built early. However for some reason, these targets
>>>> seem to always get started towards the end of the build.
>>>>
>>>> Today this is a minor annoyance. It may be adding 30 seconds to a 1
>>>> minute 30 second build. Looking in my crystal ball this problem will be
>>>> getting much much worse with some of the new targets that are coming.
>>>>
>>>> Is there a known way to influence the order at which targets are built
>>>> without introducing phony dependencies or side effects? So if A and B are
>>>> both ready to built right now, and one job-doer becomes available, is there
>>>> any way I can cause SCons to pick them up in a particular order? Maybe by
>>>> influencing a container holding onto targets?
>>>>
>>>> Thank you!
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Scons-users mailing list
>>>> Scons-users at scons.org
>>>> https://pairlist4.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-users
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Scons-users mailing list
>>> Scons-users at scons.org
>>> https://pairlist4.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-users
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Scons-users mailing list
>> Scons-users at scons.org
>> https://pairlist4.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-users
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Scons-users mailing list
> Scons-users at scons.org
> https://pairlist4.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-users
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist4.pair.net/pipermail/scons-users/attachments/20160116/dd2d82d3/attachment.html>