1 |
Michael Mol wrote: |
2 |
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 7:13 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com |
3 |
> <mailto:rdalek1967@×××××.com>> wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
> Nicolas Sebrecht wrote: |
6 |
> > The 07/09/12, Dale wrote: |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> >> The thing is tho, whether it is using the memory as cache or |
9 |
> using it |
10 |
> >> as |
11 |
> >> tmpfs, it is the same memory. There is no difference. That's the |
12 |
> >> whole |
13 |
> >> point. |
14 |
> > Feel free to take your own assumptions as undeniable truth. The |
15 |
> way the |
16 |
> > kernel work with memory is the key, of course. |
17 |
> > |
18 |
> > Now, as long as you blind yourself with statements like that, |
19 |
> I'm not |
20 |
> > going to respond anymore. I guess you need to make some basic |
21 |
> research. |
22 |
> > |
23 |
> |
24 |
> I understand how the kernel uses memory. That's why it doesn't matter |
25 |
> if you put portage's work directory on tmpfs or not. I been using |
26 |
> Linux |
27 |
> for a pretty good long while now. I have a pretty good |
28 |
> understanding of |
29 |
> it, especially the things that I use. |
30 |
> |
31 |
> Respond or not, I know what I tested and what the results were. They |
32 |
> were not just my tests and results either. |
33 |
> |
34 |
> |
35 |
> Nobody is disagreeing with your test results. In fact, they're not |
36 |
> even disagreeing with you that they mean what you think they mean |
37 |
> within the context you're testing. They're disagreeing with your |
38 |
> extrapolation of your results to other contexts. In short, all other |
39 |
> things being equal, your test results work out for someone in the |
40 |
> exact same circumstances as yourself...but there are a _lot_ of other |
41 |
> things that need to be equal! |
42 |
> |
43 |
> Filesystem mount options can have an impact. For example, let's say |
44 |
> your filesystem is configured to make writes synchronous, for general |
45 |
> data integrity purposes. That would slow PORTAGE_TMP down something |
46 |
> _fierce_. |
47 |
> |
48 |
> Someone might be tweaking any number of the knobs under 'vm' in /proc. |
49 |
> vm.swappiness, vm.dirty_* or vm.min_free_kbytes are ones that caught |
50 |
> my eye, but really most of them in there look relevant. |
51 |
> |
52 |
> Or consider that someone else might be running drop_caches, or even |
53 |
> sync() while your code is running. (Heck, if there's a database, even |
54 |
> an sqlite database, on the same filesystem, that's almost a guarantee.) |
55 |
> |
56 |
> These may seem to be obvious, but these are the kinds of things people |
57 |
> were trying to get you to be willing to acknowledge before you made |
58 |
> blanket assertions which covered them. |
59 |
> |
60 |
> -- |
61 |
> :wq |
62 |
|
63 |
|
64 |
Someone could be getting rays from Mars but I am not testing that. What |
65 |
I tested was this, Run emerge with portages work directory on disk. |
66 |
Then run same command with portage's work directory on tmpfs. Then |
67 |
compare the results. No other changes except for where portage's work |
68 |
directory is located, hard drive or ram. This was done on a NORMAL |
69 |
system that most ANY user would be using. I'm not concerned with some |
70 |
rare or exotic setup, just a normal setup. If someone is running some |
71 |
exotic setup, then they need to test that to see whether it helps or not |
72 |
because I did not test for that sort of system. I didn't test for rays |
73 |
from Mars either. LOL |
74 |
|
75 |
Dale |
76 |
|
77 |
:-) :-) |
78 |
|
79 |
-- |
80 |
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! |