| 1 |
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 10:58:28 -0500, Dale wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> >>> I wonder how effective tmpfs is for PORTAGE_TMPDIR as the builds |
| 5 |
>> >>> that need a lot of disk space can often require a fair bit of |
| 6 |
>> >>> memory too, and tmpfs is using it all. |
| 7 |
>> >>> |
| 8 |
>> >> In this last week someone reported doing actually measurements and |
| 9 |
>> >> found that using a tmpfs was actually slower. |
| 10 |
>> >> |
| 11 |
>> > Yes, but that was Dale and nothing works as it should for him :-O |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
>> That one did. Someone on the forums posted the same results. It |
| 14 |
>> doesn't make sense but . . . . |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> It makes sense because the ramdisk is using memory that would otherwise |
| 17 |
> be used for compilation and filesystem caches. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
tmpfs isn't implemented as a ramdisk, it's implemented as a thin layer |
| 20 |
on top of the filesystem cache. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
:wq |
Archives