1 |
2018-02-08 23:57 GMT+02:00 Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>: |
2 |
> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 4:52 PM, gevisz <gevisz@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
>> |
4 |
>> However, it probably won't be sooner than |
5 |
>> # emerge --update --deep --with-bdeps=y --newuse --backtrack=90 --ask |
6 |
>> world --exclude chromium |
7 |
>> fails because of the "--exclude chromium" part :), as I have already compiled |
8 |
>> the recent vertion of chromium with /var/tmp/portage on the hard disk and |
9 |
>> it took more than 24 hours on my old AMD Athlon X2 with j2 option. :( |
10 |
>> |
11 |
> |
12 |
> Honestly I doubt that tmpfs will make much difference since this is |
13 |
> probably CPU-bound. |
14 |
|
15 |
Thank you for your reply. |
16 |
|
17 |
You probably will be surprised, but the main reason I am trying to use |
18 |
tmpfs for /var/tmp/ is not because I want to make emerging chromium |
19 |
faster (I have no hope about that because read somewhere that it will |
20 |
make compilation only 10 percent faster) but because I have not too |
21 |
much free space on / (sometimes in the past chromium refused to build |
22 |
in the similar conditions) and because of that either have to move /var/tmp |
23 |
to the separate partition anyway or try to use tmpfs + swap and, if it fails, |
24 |
to move to the separate partition only /var/tmp/portage/notmpfs |
25 |
|
26 |
> Using the jumbo-build option probably will help a lot more - but it |
27 |
> will use even more RAM and might make a tmpfs impractical for you. I |
28 |
> bet that jumbo-build on a spinning disk will be faster for you than |
29 |
> not using that option on a tmpfs. But, there is only one way to be |
30 |
> sure. |