1 |
Michael Mol wrote: |
2 |
> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
3 |
>> On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 07:52:45 -0500, Dale wrote: |
4 |
>> |
5 |
>>>>> I might also add, I see no speed improvements in putting portages |
6 |
>>>>> work directory on tmpfs. I have tested this a few times and the |
7 |
>>>>> difference in compile times is just not there. |
8 |
>>>> Probably because with 16GB everything stays cached anyway. |
9 |
>>> I cleared the cache between the compiles. This is the command I use: |
10 |
>>> |
11 |
>>> echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches |
12 |
>> But you are still using the RAM as disk cache during the emerge, the data |
13 |
>> doesn't stay around long enough to need to get written to disk with so |
14 |
>> much RAM for cache. |
15 |
> Indeed. Try setting the mount to write-through to see the difference. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> |
18 |
|
19 |
When I run that command, it clears all the cache. It is the same as if |
20 |
I rebooted. Certainly you are not thinking that cache survives a reboot? |
21 |
|
22 |
If you are talking about ram on the drive itself, well, when it is on |
23 |
tmpfs, it is not on the drive to be cached. That's the whole point of |
24 |
tmpfs is to get the slow drive out of the way. By the way, there are |
25 |
others that ran tests with the same results. It just doesn't speed up |
26 |
anything since drives are so much faster nowadays. |
27 |
|
28 |
Dale |
29 |
|
30 |
:-) :-) |
31 |
|
32 |
-- |
33 |
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! |