Re: [gentoo-user] SSD partitioning and migration

[Mick]

On Sunday 21 Jul 2013 10:40:11 Dale wrote:
> Mick wrote:
> > On Saturday 20 Jul 2013 06:12:40 Dale wrote:
> >> Bruce Hill wrote:
> >>> If 16GB of RAM wasn't enough, ydiw. I've used that line of 7G forever,
> >>> and run app-office/libreoffice, as well as firefox and some other big
> >>> app (forget it's name) and _never_ had a problem.
> >>
> >> Well, a while back, OOo and LOo wanted more than 8Gbs.  It wasn't my
> >> need but what portage looked for.  Then someone did some changes and
> >> reduced that need and it worked.  From my understanding, there was some
> >> code clean up that helped in that.  I think it looks for 6Gbs now.  From
> >> the ebuild:
> >>
> >> CHECKREQS_MEMORY="512M"
> >> CHECKREQS_DISK_BUILD="6G"
> >>
> >> It used to be more than that.  If it didn't have enough, it stopped.
> >> Even when I would override that setting, it would still run out of space
> >> more often than not.  As a matter of fact, I still have the command in
> >> my freq used commands file that I used to fix it:
> >>
> >> mount -t tmpfs -o size=12g tmpfs /var/tmp/portage
> >
> > Does it stop dead or does it start to page into swap?
>
> Actually, portage looks for enough space before even starting and still
> does.  However, when I force it to ignore it, it stops and says it ran
> out of space.  I'd just rather it didn't use swap anyway.  Either way,
> OOo and LOo used to need lots of space.  I think there was some code
> cleanup and maybe some other changes that reduced that a lot.  I think
> there was also some gcc changes to but not sure on that.
>
> I did some more searching after my last post, at one point it looked for
> at least 12GBs from what I found.  That was the largest setting I found.

Right, so running /var/tmp/portage on a tmpfs definitely won't work on an old 
box of mine with only a few MB of memory.

-- 
Regards,
Mick