| 1 |
On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 06:31:24 -0500, Dale wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Not quite. The theory is that if you put portages work directory on |
| 4 |
> tmpfs, then all the writes and such are done in ram which is faster. If |
| 5 |
> you have portages work directory on disk, it will be slower because the |
| 6 |
> disk is slower. |
| 7 |
|
| 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 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Is there another word for synonym? |
Archives