1 |
Grant wrote: |
2 |
> ... |
3 |
> |
4 |
>> If my main rig starts using swap a lot, I'm going to be very curious. I |
5 |
>> even used 8Gbs to put portages work directory on tmpfs. I still didn't use |
6 |
>> any swap. By the way, that doesn't seem to make the compiles any faster. |
7 |
>> o_O |
8 |
>> |
9 |
> CPU bottleneck? |
10 |
> |
11 |
> - Grant |
12 |
> |
13 |
> |
14 |
> |
15 |
|
16 |
I sort of doubt it. I have a AMD 4 core 3.2Ghz CPU. A 6 core is about |
17 |
all that beats it. I think they have a 3.3. and a 3.4 now but that's |
18 |
marginal really. |
19 |
|
20 |
It has always been said that reading and writing to the portage work |
21 |
directory would slow down compiles a bit. Well, I tested the theory and |
22 |
it seemed to have taken a few seconds longer with portage's work |
23 |
directory on tmpfs instead of a hard drive. I see the reason it should |
24 |
be faster and I think it should be faster but when I tried it, theory |
25 |
ran up against reality. We all know what happens when theory meets |
26 |
reality. Theory is small and weak but reality is large, strong and a |
27 |
great teacher to boot. Reality always wins even when it don't make |
28 |
sense. :/ |
29 |
|
30 |
Don't worry, I was as surprised as anyone. I found on the forum where |
31 |
someone else came to the same conclusions. I guess it caches stuff or |
32 |
just that drives are faster and smarter nowadays. |
33 |
|
34 |
It was neat to try it tho. ;-) This is the most ram I have ever had. |
35 |
May be more than inside my head. lol |
36 |
|
37 |
Dale |
38 |
|
39 |
:-) :-) |