| 1 |
Walter Dnes wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 01:31:45AM -0600, Dale wrote |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-6878530.html?sid=924b3c65e5584c4dc81672583d97b85d#6878530 |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> You need more ram, swap space or maybe drive space for the portage work |
| 7 |
>> directory. Basically, it's running out of space somewhere. |
| 8 |
> Thanks for the pointer. I think I've figured it it out now. When I |
| 9 |
> set up my laptop, I copied most of /etc/make.conf verbatim from my |
| 10 |
> desktop, including the line... |
| 11 |
> PORTAGE_TMPFS="/dev/shm" |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> That works just fine on my desktop with 8 gigs of ram. Unfortunately, |
| 14 |
> my laptop only has 4 gigs, so that doesn't work quite so well. I've |
| 15 |
> changed that line to... |
| 16 |
> PORTAGE_TMPFS="/tmp" |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Builds will be slower, no doubt. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I put the portage work directory on tmpfs in ram and I can't tell much |
| 22 |
difference. When I tested it, having portage's work directory on tmpfs |
| 23 |
was actually a bit slower, just by a few seconds tho. So, having it on |
| 24 |
a drive doesn't seem to matter much. I guess drives are pretty fast |
| 25 |
nowadays. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
The funny thing, I have to leave mine on tmpfs because when I update |
| 28 |
LOo, I don't have enough space on /var. I have enough ram tho. lol |
| 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