Re: [gentoo-user] Re: aligning SSD partitions

[Michael Mol]

On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote:

>  Michael Mol wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 7:13 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote:
>
>>  Nicolas Sebrecht wrote:
>> > The 07/09/12, Dale wrote:
>> >
>> >> The thing is tho, whether it is using the memory as cache or using it
>> >> as
>> >> tmpfs, it is the same memory.  There is no difference.  That's the
>> >> whole
>> >> point.
>> > Feel free to take your own assumptions as undeniable truth. The way the
>> > kernel work with memory is the key, of course.
>> >
>> > Now, as long as you blind yourself with statements like that, I'm not
>> > going to respond anymore. I guess you need to make some basic research.
>> >
>>
>>  I understand how the kernel uses memory.  That's why it doesn't matter
>> if you put portage's work directory on tmpfs or not.  I been using Linux
>> for a pretty good long while now.  I have a pretty good understanding of
>> it, especially the things that I use.
>>
>> Respond or not, I know what I tested and what the results were.  They
>> were not just my tests and results either.
>>
>
>  Nobody is disagreeing with your test results. In fact, they're not even
> disagreeing with you that they mean what you think they mean within the
> context you're testing. They're disagreeing with your extrapolation of your
> results to other contexts. In short, all other things being equal, your
> test results work out for someone in the exact same circumstances as
> yourself...but there are a _lot_ of other things that need to be equal!
>
>  Filesystem mount options can have an impact. For example, let's say your
> filesystem is configured to make writes synchronous, for general data
> integrity purposes. That would slow PORTAGE_TMP down something _fierce_.
>
>  Someone might be tweaking any number of the knobs under 'vm' in /proc.
> vm.swappiness, vm.dirty_* or vm.min_free_kbytes are ones that caught my
> eye, but really most of them in there look relevant.
>
>  Or consider that someone else might be running drop_caches, or even
> sync() while your code is running. (Heck, if there's a database, even an
> sqlite database, on the same filesystem, that's almost a guarantee.)
>
>  These may seem to be obvious, but these are the kinds of things people
> were trying to get you to be willing to acknowledge before you made blanket
> assertions which covered them.
>
>  --
> :wq
>
>
>
> Someone could be getting rays from Mars but I am not testing that.  What I
> tested was this,  Run emerge with portages work directory on disk.  Then
> run same command with portage's work directory on tmpfs.  Then compare the
> results.  No other changes except for where portage's work directory is
> located, hard drive or ram.  This was done on a NORMAL system that most ANY
> user would be using.  I'm not concerned with some rare or exotic setup,
> just a normal setup.  If someone is running some exotic setup, then they
> need to test that to see whether it helps or not because I did not test for
> that sort of system.  I didn't test for rays from Mars either.  LOL
>
>
Running databases on the same filesystem as PORTAGE_TMP is not a rare or
exotic setup. Anyone who doesn't use a separate /home or separate portage
temp is in a circumstance like that.


-- 
:wq