1 |
Paul Hartman wrote: |
2 |
> On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Richard Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
>> I'll just echo what Duncan said about nice / ionice. However, you might |
4 |
>> find the impact of ionice -c 3 on compilation is reduced if you use a tmpfs |
5 |
>> for /var/tmp/portage. Note that depending on what you're building you might |
6 |
>> need a fairly large tmpfs, and it could trigger swapping. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> I agree, I use /dev/shm (4gigs) for my portage tmpdir and it has had a |
9 |
> bigger noticeable speed impact than ccache or niceness, and the |
10 |
> silence of zero disk activity (other than reading the distfiles in the |
11 |
> unpack stage and installing the compiled files) is nice, too. |
12 |
> |
13 |
|
14 |
I would do this, however, my problem is (or was) RAM. Until yesterday I |
15 |
had only 1GB RAM in this laptop. Now I have doubled it which is the max |
16 |
it will support (it's 4 years old). I don't think 2GB is worth trying a |
17 |
tmpfs for. |
18 |
|
19 |
|
20 |
-- |
21 |
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum |
22 |
|
23 |
Mark Haney |
24 |
Sr. Systems Administrator |
25 |
ERC Broadband |
26 |
(828) 350-2415 |