1 |
>>> If my main rig starts using swap a lot, I'm going to be very curious. I |
2 |
>>> even used 8Gbs to put portages work directory on tmpfs. I still didn't |
3 |
>>> use |
4 |
>>> any swap. By the way, that doesn't seem to make the compiles any faster. |
5 |
>>> o_O |
6 |
>>> |
7 |
>> CPU bottleneck? |
8 |
>> |
9 |
>> - Grant |
10 |
>> |
11 |
> I sort of doubt it. I have a AMD 4 core 3.2Ghz CPU. A 6 core is about all |
12 |
> that beats it. I think they have a 3.3. and a 3.4 now but that's marginal |
13 |
> really. |
14 |
|
15 |
I just got a 3.7! :) |
16 |
|
17 |
> It has always been said that reading and writing to the portage work |
18 |
> directory would slow down compiles a bit. Well, I tested the theory and it |
19 |
> seemed to have taken a few seconds longer with portage's work directory on |
20 |
> tmpfs instead of a hard drive. I see the reason it should be faster and I |
21 |
> think it should be faster but when I tried it, theory ran up against |
22 |
> reality. We all know what happens when theory meets reality. Theory is |
23 |
> small and weak but reality is large, strong and a great teacher to boot. |
24 |
> Reality always wins even when it don't make sense. :/ |
25 |
> |
26 |
> Don't worry, I was as surprised as anyone. I found on the forum where |
27 |
> someone else came to the same conclusions. I guess it caches stuff or just |
28 |
> that drives are faster and smarter nowadays. |
29 |
|
30 |
Thanks for sharing your results Dale. Surprising stuff. |
31 |
|
32 |
- Grant |