| 1 |
Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 06:31:24 -0500, Dale wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> Not quite. The theory is that if you put portages work directory on |
| 5 |
>> tmpfs, then all the writes and such are done in ram which is faster. If |
| 6 |
>> you have portages work directory on disk, it will be slower because the |
| 7 |
>> disk is slower. |
| 8 |
> But the disk is not used when you have enough RAM to keep everything |
| 9 |
> cached. So you are comparing the speed of storing all files in RAM with |
| 10 |
> the speed of storing all files in RAM, so it is hardly surprising that |
| 11 |
> the two tests give similar results. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> The fact that in one scenario the files do end up on disk is irrelevant, |
| 14 |
> you are working from RAM copies of the files in both instances. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> By running the test on a lightly loaded machine, you are also removing |
| 17 |
> the possibility of files being flushed from the cache in the |
| 18 |
> tmpdir-on-disk setup, so I would expect you to get comparable results |
| 19 |
> either way. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> The only real benefit of using tmpfs is the one you mentioned elsewhere, |
| 22 |
> that the disks don't get bothered at all. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I don't think that is correct. I am clearing the files in ram. That's |
| 27 |
the point of drop_caches is to clear the kernels cache files. See post |
| 28 |
to Nicolas Sebrecht a bit ago. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Dale |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
:-) :-) |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! |
Archives