| 1 |
Mick wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sunday 21 Jul 2013 10:40:11 Dale wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> Actually, portage looks for enough space before even starting and still |
| 5 |
>> does. However, when I force it to ignore it, it stops and says it ran |
| 6 |
>> out of space. I'd just rather it didn't use swap anyway. Either way, |
| 7 |
>> OOo and LOo used to need lots of space. I think there was some code |
| 8 |
>> cleanup and maybe some other changes that reduced that a lot. I think |
| 9 |
>> there was also some gcc changes to but not sure on that. |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> I did some more searching after my last post, at one point it looked for |
| 12 |
>> at least 12GBs from what I found. That was the largest setting I found. |
| 13 |
> Right, so running /var/tmp/portage on a tmpfs definitely won't work on an old |
| 14 |
> box of mine with only a few MB of memory. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Not likely. It may for some smaller packages but not for the large ones |
| 18 |
for sure. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
When I first built this rig, I only had 8GBs of ram and I could only use |
| 21 |
it when all the packages to update were smaller ones. Generally, I just |
| 22 |
left it on a HDD. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
The biggest issue that I run into still, failed emerges are left on |
| 25 |
there and take up space that the next packages may need. Thing is, they |
| 26 |
have to be there to see what caused it to fail. Of course, the same |
| 27 |
thing can happen when on a HDD as well. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Dale |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
:-) :-) |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! |
Archives