| 1 |
Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 05:11:01 -0500, Dale wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> You need to run free, run the command to clear and then run free again |
| 5 |
>> so you can see for yourself. If it was just me, I could think I am |
| 6 |
>> wrong but this was tested by others too with the same results. |
| 7 |
> I'm not saying your test results are wrong, I'm explaining why I think |
| 8 |
> they are what they are. Have you tried running free *during* the emerge? |
| 9 |
> I expect you'll find plenty of cache in use then. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
The point isn't about using cache DURING the emerge. The point was |
| 14 |
whether having portages work directory on tmpfs resulted in speed |
| 15 |
increases. If you have portages work directory on tmpfs, of course it |
| 16 |
uses ram. That's what tmpfs is. It's taking what might normally be put |
| 17 |
on the disk and putting it in ram because ram is faster. The point is, |
| 18 |
cache or not, having portages work directory on tmpfs doesn't result in |
| 19 |
speed improvements as one would expect. Actual tests gave unexpected |
| 20 |
results. Tests show that putting portages work directory on tmpfs did |
| 21 |
not result in speed increases for emerging packages. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Dale |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
:-) :-) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! |
Archives