1 |
Neil Bothwick wrote: |
2 |
> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 05:03:55 -0500, Dale wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
>>>> You miss this point not me. I *cleared* that cache. From |
5 |
>>>> kernel.org: |
6 |
>>> Sorry Dale, but you are missing the point. You cleared the cache |
7 |
>>> before running emerge, then ran emerge. The first thing emerge did |
8 |
>>> was unpack the tarball and populate the disk cache. All clearing the |
9 |
>>> disk cache did was make sure there was plenty of space to cache the |
10 |
>>> new data, thus speeding up the process. |
11 |
>> Then explain to me why it was at times slower while on tmpfs? Trust me, |
12 |
>> I ran this test many times and in different orders and it did NOT make |
13 |
>> much if any difference. |
14 |
> So it was slower at times, but not by much? That's just general variances |
15 |
> caused by multi-tasking, wind direction etc. |
16 |
|
17 |
That's the point. It doesn't make any difference whether you have |
18 |
portages work directory on tmpfs or not. For the point of this thread, |
19 |
it would be a good idea to save wear and tear on the SSD but one should |
20 |
NOT expect that emerge will compile packages any faster because of it |
21 |
being on tmpfs instead of on disk. I might also add, I ran some of my |
22 |
tests in single user mode. That is about as raw as Linux gets but there |
23 |
is still the chance of variances here and there. That's why I said not |
24 |
much. Sometimes one would be a second or two faster then next time be a |
25 |
second or two slower. Basically, just normal variances that may not be |
26 |
related to one another. |
27 |
|
28 |
> |
29 |
>> I might add, the cache on the drive I was using is nowhere near large |
30 |
>> enough to cache the tarball for the package. Heck, the cache on my |
31 |
>> current system drive is only 8Mbs according to hdparm. |
32 |
> We're not talking about drive caches, the kernel caches filesystem access |
33 |
> long before it gets anywhere the drive. So all the real work is done in |
34 |
> RAM if you have enough, whether you are using a hard drive filesystem or |
35 |
> tmpfs. All your test demonstrates is that if you have enough RAM, it |
36 |
> doesn't make much difference where you put PORTAGE_TMPDIR. |
37 |
> |
38 |
> |
39 |
|
40 |
The command mentioned several replies back CLEARS that cache. When you |
41 |
run that command to clear the cache, from my understanding, at that |
42 |
point it is as if the command has never been run since the last reboot. |
43 |
Meaning, the command, emerge in this case, and its children are NOT |
44 |
cached in ram nor is anything else. I posted that from kernel.org. |
45 |
That's their claim not mine. If you don't accept that clearing the |
46 |
cache works, you need to talk to the kernel people because they are |
47 |
saying it there and I'm just repeating it here. A link for you to read: |
48 |
|
49 |
http://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/sysctl/vm.txt |
50 |
|
51 |
Just scroll down to the section about drop_caches. Read it for yourself |
52 |
if you can't/won't accept me saying it. |
53 |
|
54 |
Dale |
55 |
|
56 |
:-) :-) |
57 |
|
58 |
-- |
59 |
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! |