| 1 |
Michael Mol wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com |
| 3 |
> <mailto:rdalek1967@×××××.com>> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Michael Mol wrote: |
| 6 |
>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 7:13 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com |
| 7 |
>> <mailto:rdalek1967@×××××.com>> wrote: |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> Nicolas Sebrecht wrote: |
| 10 |
>> > The 07/09/12, Dale wrote: |
| 11 |
>> > |
| 12 |
>> >> The thing is tho, whether it is using the memory as cache |
| 13 |
>> or using it |
| 14 |
>> >> as |
| 15 |
>> >> tmpfs, it is the same memory. There is no difference. |
| 16 |
>> That's the |
| 17 |
>> >> whole |
| 18 |
>> >> point. |
| 19 |
>> > Feel free to take your own assumptions as undeniable truth. |
| 20 |
>> The way the |
| 21 |
>> > kernel work with memory is the key, of course. |
| 22 |
>> > |
| 23 |
>> > Now, as long as you blind yourself with statements like |
| 24 |
>> that, I'm not |
| 25 |
>> > going to respond anymore. I guess you need to make some |
| 26 |
>> basic research. |
| 27 |
>> > |
| 28 |
>> |
| 29 |
>> I understand how the kernel uses memory. That's why it |
| 30 |
>> doesn't matter |
| 31 |
>> if you put portage's work directory on tmpfs or not. I been |
| 32 |
>> using Linux |
| 33 |
>> for a pretty good long while now. I have a pretty good |
| 34 |
>> understanding of |
| 35 |
>> it, especially the things that I use. |
| 36 |
>> |
| 37 |
>> Respond or not, I know what I tested and what the results |
| 38 |
>> were. They |
| 39 |
>> were not just my tests and results either. |
| 40 |
>> |
| 41 |
>> |
| 42 |
>> Nobody is disagreeing with your test results. In fact, they're |
| 43 |
>> not even disagreeing with you that they mean what you think they |
| 44 |
>> mean within the context you're testing. They're disagreeing with |
| 45 |
>> your extrapolation of your results to other contexts. In short, |
| 46 |
>> all other things being equal, your test results work out for |
| 47 |
>> someone in the exact same circumstances as yourself...but there |
| 48 |
>> are a _lot_ of other things that need to be equal! |
| 49 |
>> |
| 50 |
>> Filesystem mount options can have an impact. For example, let's |
| 51 |
>> say your filesystem is configured to make writes synchronous, for |
| 52 |
>> general data integrity purposes. That would slow PORTAGE_TMP down |
| 53 |
>> something _fierce_. |
| 54 |
>> |
| 55 |
>> Someone might be tweaking any number of the knobs under 'vm' in |
| 56 |
>> /proc. vm.swappiness, vm.dirty_* or vm.min_free_kbytes are ones |
| 57 |
>> that caught my eye, but really most of them in there look relevant. |
| 58 |
>> |
| 59 |
>> Or consider that someone else might be running drop_caches, or |
| 60 |
>> even sync() while your code is running. (Heck, if there's a |
| 61 |
>> database, even an sqlite database, on the same filesystem, that's |
| 62 |
>> almost a guarantee.) |
| 63 |
>> |
| 64 |
>> These may seem to be obvious, but these are the kinds of things |
| 65 |
>> people were trying to get you to be willing to acknowledge before |
| 66 |
>> you made blanket assertions which covered them. |
| 67 |
>> |
| 68 |
>> -- |
| 69 |
>> :wq |
| 70 |
> |
| 71 |
> |
| 72 |
> Someone could be getting rays from Mars but I am not testing |
| 73 |
> that. What I tested was this, Run emerge with portages work |
| 74 |
> directory on disk. Then run same command with portage's work |
| 75 |
> directory on tmpfs. Then compare the results. No other changes |
| 76 |
> except for where portage's work directory is located, hard drive |
| 77 |
> or ram. This was done on a NORMAL system that most ANY user would |
| 78 |
> be using. I'm not concerned with some rare or exotic setup, just |
| 79 |
> a normal setup. If someone is running some exotic setup, then |
| 80 |
> they need to test that to see whether it helps or not because I |
| 81 |
> did not test for that sort of system. I didn't test for rays from |
| 82 |
> Mars either. LOL |
| 83 |
> |
| 84 |
> |
| 85 |
> Running databases on the same filesystem as PORTAGE_TMP is not a rare |
| 86 |
> or exotic setup. Anyone who doesn't use a separate /home or separate |
| 87 |
> portage temp is in a circumstance like that. |
| 88 |
> |
| 89 |
> |
| 90 |
> -- |
| 91 |
> :wq |
| 92 |
|
| 93 |
|
| 94 |
Well, I have /home on its own partition, like most likely everyone |
| 95 |
does. At the time, I was not using LVM either. At the time, I had a |
| 96 |
pretty much default install except that the portage tree was on its own |
| 97 |
partition since I wanted to keep it from fragmenting all of /usr with |
| 98 |
all those constantly changing little files. |
| 99 |
|
| 100 |
I also use defaults when mounting file systems too. Nothing exotic or |
| 101 |
weird or anything. |
| 102 |
|
| 103 |
So again, just testing on as normal a system as there could be to get |
| 104 |
some real world results. |
| 105 |
|
| 106 |
Dale |
| 107 |
|
| 108 |
:-) :-) |
| 109 |
|
| 110 |
-- |
| 111 |
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! |
Archives