| 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 |
Archives