| 1 |
The 06/09/12, Dale wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> But this is what you guys are missing too. If you want to use tmpfs, |
| 4 |
> you have to have enough ram to begin with. Whether you use tmpfs or |
| 5 |
> not, you have to have enough ram to do the compile otherwise you start |
| 6 |
> using swap or it just crashes. Having ram is a prerequisite to using |
| 7 |
> tmpfs. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
This is too minimal overview to get the point. Memory is not a static |
| 10 |
place. This is not a cake beeing shared once. Memory is living. See my |
| 11 |
other mail. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> There is another flaw in your assumption above. I already had the |
| 14 |
> tarballs downloaded BEFORE even the first emerge. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
This is not a flaw in assumption. This is negligible. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> What the people wanted to test is if putting portages work directory on |
| 19 |
> tmpfs would make emerge times faster. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Come'on. We all understood your goal from the beginning. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> Do we all admit that having portage on tmpfs does not make emerge times |
| 24 |
> faster yet? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
No. It depends on factors and underlying processes you claim they don't |
| 27 |
matter, which is wrong. They *might* be not relevant in some cases. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Nicolas Sebrecht |
Archives