| 1 |
Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 10:58:28 -0500, Dale wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>>>>> I wonder how effective tmpfs is for PORTAGE_TMPDIR as the builds |
| 6 |
>>>>> that need a lot of disk space can often require a fair bit of |
| 7 |
>>>>> memory too, and tmpfs is using it all. |
| 8 |
>>>>> |
| 9 |
>>>>> |
| 10 |
>>>> In this last week someone reported doing actually measurements and |
| 11 |
>>>> found that using a tmpfs was actually slower. |
| 12 |
>>>> |
| 13 |
>>>> |
| 14 |
>>> Yes, but that was Dale and nothing works as it should for him :-O |
| 15 |
>>> |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
>> That one did. Someone on the forums posted the same results. It |
| 18 |
>> doesn't make sense but . . . . |
| 19 |
>> |
| 20 |
> It makes sense because the ramdisk is using memory that would otherwise |
| 21 |
> be used for compilation and filesystem caches. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I have 16Gbs here. It's not like I'm going to run out or anything. I |
| 27 |
can put half on tmpfs and still have 8Gbs left. That is more than |
| 28 |
enough to compile even OOo with no space problems. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Thoughts? |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Dale |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
:-) :-) |
Archives