1 |
On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 12:47 PM, Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
> On 08/02/18 19:11, gevisz wrote: |
3 |
>> |
4 |
>> I never used tmpfs for portage TMPDIR before and now decided to give it a |
5 |
>> try. |
6 |
>> |
7 |
>> I have 8GB of RAM and 12GB of swap on a separate partition. |
8 |
>> |
9 |
|
10 |
You can try it, but for Chromium these days you might find that still |
11 |
doesn't perform great. I have 16GB of RAM (no swap) and have moved |
12 |
back to building on SSD for that one package (with ccache to help). |
13 |
|
14 |
> |
15 |
> |
16 |
> If you're not using ccache, then you don't need /var/tmp to be on tmpfs. You |
17 |
> should only put /var/tmp/portage on tmpfs. |
18 |
|
19 |
I disagree on this. Unless you have something that uses gobs of space |
20 |
on /var/tmp there is little reason not to make the whole thing a |
21 |
tmpfs. |
22 |
|
23 |
> If you do use ccache, then you need to mount both /var/tmp and |
24 |
> /var/tmp/portage as tmpfs. |
25 |
|
26 |
I DEFINITELY disagree on this one. What is the point of using ccache |
27 |
and then storing it on tmpfs, unless it is just for dealing with |
28 |
short-term build failures? The whole point of ccache is to re-use the |
29 |
results of previous builds, and sticking it on tmpfs defeats that. If |
30 |
you're going to just store it on tmpfs you might as well not use |
31 |
ccache at all and free up a ton of RAM for the rest of the build. |
32 |
|
33 |
Maybe I could see this sort of thing being used in niche situations, |
34 |
such as if you are a developer on some project and build the same |
35 |
thing 20 times per day between reboots. If you only build a package |
36 |
once per reboot then having a ccache on tmpfs provides no benefit at |
37 |
all, and just eats vram and creates more swap writes (though probably |
38 |
not reads). |
39 |
|
40 |
-- |
41 |
Rich |