| 1 |
On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 05:03:55 -0500, Dale wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> >> You miss this point not me. I *cleared* that cache. From |
| 4 |
> >> kernel.org: |
| 5 |
> > Sorry Dale, but you are missing the point. You cleared the cache |
| 6 |
> > before running emerge, then ran emerge. The first thing emerge did |
| 7 |
> > was unpack the tarball and populate the disk cache. All clearing the |
| 8 |
> > disk cache did was make sure there was plenty of space to cache the |
| 9 |
> > new data, thus speeding up the process. |
| 10 |
|
| 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 |
|
| 15 |
So it was slower at times, but not by much? That's just general variances |
| 16 |
caused by multi-tasking, wind direction etc. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> I might add, the cache on the drive I was using is nowhere near large |
| 19 |
> enough to cache the tarball for the package. Heck, the cache on my |
| 20 |
> current system drive is only 8Mbs according to hdparm. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
We're not talking about drive caches, the kernel caches filesystem access |
| 23 |
long before it gets anywhere the drive. So all the real work is done in |
| 24 |
RAM if you have enough, whether you are using a hard drive filesystem or |
| 25 |
tmpfs. All your test demonstrates is that if you have enough RAM, it |
| 26 |
doesn't make much difference where you put PORTAGE_TMPDIR. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Evolution stops when stupidity is no longer fatal! |
Archives