Depending on your available ram and swap space, you might want to mount
/var/tmp/portage as tmpfs. My fstab entry shows
none/var/tmp/portagetmpfs size=10g,nr_inodes=1m
I have 4GB ram, and the speed benefit especially for open/libre-office is quite
impressive.
The
Is anyone else running into this:
libtool: link: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc -DINET6
-D_U_=__attribute__((unused)) -march=native -O2 -pipe -Wall -W -Wextra
-Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wendif-labels -Wpointer-arith
-Wno-pointer-sign -Warray-bounds -Wcast-align -Wformat-security
-I/usr/include
On Wednesday 27 Jul 2011 08:24:37 Alexander Puchmayr wrote:
Depending on your available ram and swap space, you might want to mount
/var/tmp/portage as tmpfs. My fstab entry shows
none/var/tmp/portagetmpfs
size=10g,nr_inodes=1m
I have 4GB ram, and the speed
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday 27 Jul 2011 08:24:37 Alexander Puchmayr wrote:
Depending on your available ram and swap space, you might want to mount
/var/tmp/portage as tmpfs. My fstab entry shows
none /var/tmp/portage
* Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com [110727 05:07]:
Is anyone else running into this:
libtool: link: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc -DINET6
-D_U_=__attribute__((unused)) -march=native -O2 -pipe -Wall -W -Wextra
-Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wendif-labels -Wpointer-arith
-Wno-pointer-sign
On Wednesday 27 July 2011 14:29:12 Michael Mol wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote:
What will libreoffice do if /var/tmp/portage is a tmpfs? Start
swapping like mad?
No; the tmpfs runs out of space, and the build fails. Had that happen
with
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Peter Humphrey
pe...@humphrey.ukfsn.org wrote:
On Wednesday 27 July 2011 14:29:12 Michael Mol wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote:
What will libreoffice do if /var/tmp/portage is a tmpfs? Start
swapping like mad?
On 07/26/2011 12:22 PM, pk wrote:
On 2011-07-26 22:36, Alokat wrote:
model name : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU L7100 @ 1.20GHz
snip
I guess *core2* is the right one?
Yes, acc. to:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Andy Wilkinson drukar...@gmail.com wrote:
**
On 07/26/2011 12:22 PM, pk wrote:
On 2011-07-26 22:36, Alokat wrote:
model name : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU L7100 @ 1.20GHz
snip
I guess *core2* is the right one?
Yes, acc.
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:41:33 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
Doesn't do that here. When tmpfs is full it starts being swapped out to
the swap partition. Perhaps you didn't have any swap at the time.
The default size for a tmpfs filesystem is half the physical RAM, unless
you specify more as a
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:41:33 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
Doesn't do that here. When tmpfs is full it starts being swapped out to
the swap partition. Perhaps you didn't have any swap at the time.
The default size for a tmpfs filesystem is half the physical RAM,
-original message-
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] CFlags for CPU
From: Andy Wilkinson drukar...@gmail.com
Date: 2011-07-27 21:09
Another good trick I've found on the forums is to run:
$ gcc -### -e -v -march=native /usr/include/stdlib.h
The last line of output will include the various CFLAGS that
On Wednesday 27 July 2011 15:40:03 Neil Bothwick did opine thusly:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:41:33 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
Doesn't do that here. When tmpfs is full it starts being swapped
out to the swap partition. Perhaps you didn't have any swap at
the time.
The default size for a
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:41:33 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
Doesn't do that here. When tmpfs is full it starts being swapped out to
the swap partition. Perhaps you didn't have any swap at the time.
The default size for a
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday 27 July 2011 15:40:03 Neil Bothwick did opine thusly:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:41:33 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
Doesn't do that here. When tmpfs is full it starts being swapped
out to the swap
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:52:53 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
I wonder how effective tmpfs is for PORTAGE_TMPDIR as the builds
that need a lot of disk space can often require a fair bit of
memory too, and tmpfs is using it all.
In this last week someone reported doing actually measurements
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:52:53 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
I wonder how effective tmpfs is for PORTAGE_TMPDIR as the builds
that need a lot of disk space can often require a fair bit of
memory too, and tmpfs is using it all.
In this last week someone reported
Todd Goodman wrote:
It looks like you're missing linking in of libgcrypt. Maybe ensure you
have an up to date version (or not too up to date.)
Or try emerging without the gcrypt use flag?
I just emerged that for x86 and had no problem. But I don't have the
gcrypt use flag enabled.
Todd
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Kfir Lavi lavi.k...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Andy Wilkinson drukar...@gmail.comwrote:
**
On 07/26/2011 12:22 PM, pk wrote:
On 2011-07-26 22:36, Alokat wrote:
model name : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU L7100 @ 1.20GHz
On Wednesday 27 Jul 2011 17:13:21 Kfir Lavi wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Kfir Lavi lavi.k...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Andy Wilkinson
Another good trick I've found on the forums is to run:
$ gcc -### -e -v -march=native /usr/include/stdlib.h
The
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday 27 Jul 2011 17:13:21 Kfir Lavi wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Kfir Lavi lavi.k...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Andy Wilkinson
Another good trick I've found on the forums is
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 10:58:28 -0500, Dale wrote:
I wonder how effective tmpfs is for PORTAGE_TMPDIR as the builds
that need a lot of disk space can often require a fair bit of
memory too, and tmpfs is using it all.
In this last week someone reported doing actually measurements
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 10:58:28 -0500, Dale wrote:
I wonder how effective tmpfs is for PORTAGE_TMPDIR as the builds
that need a lot of disk space can often require a fair bit of
memory too, and tmpfs is using it all.
On Wednesday 27 Jul 2011 21:24:33 Mark Knecht wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday 27 Jul 2011 17:13:21 Kfir Lavi wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Kfir Lavi lavi.k...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Andy
Todd Goodman wrote:
It's certainly possible it's unrelated. Or it could be something
similar and the other bug reporter made a mistake bisecting or didn't run
long enough to fail with that bisection. It's possibly a lot of things
since we don't have enough information.
I don't think that
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 10:58:28 -0500, Dale wrote:
I wonder how effective tmpfs is for PORTAGE_TMPDIR as the builds
that need a lot of disk space can often require a fair bit of
memory too, and tmpfs is using it all.
In this last week someone reported doing
On 2011-07-27 20:32, Mick wrote:
It seems that on my early i7, the -march=core2 does not have all the -msse*
flags enabled, while native does:
Acc. to this there is a flag for i7, BUT... I'm not sure if current
stable version accepts it:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 10:58:28 -0500, Dale wrote:
I have 16Gbs here. It's not like I'm going to run out or anything. I can
put half on tmpfs and still have 8Gbs left. That is more than enough to
compile
Michael Mol wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Dalerdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 10:58:28 -0500, Dale wrote:
I have 16Gbs here. It's not like I'm going to run out or anything. I can
put half on tmpfs and still have 8Gbs left.
On Wednesday 27 July 2011 22:03:31 Dale wrote:
Does this make sense to anyone?
Yes. I think your power interruption has damaged the drive electronics.
--
Rgds
Peter Linux Counter number 5290
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 5:51 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Michael Mol wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Dalerdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 10:58:28 -0500, Dale wrote:
I have 16Gbs here. It's not like I'm going to run out or
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Here is a update. Let's see what folks think about this situation. I
mentioned in another thread that I did a from scratch kernel. It was a .35
version. It seemed to work fine, for a while. When I tell Seamonkey to
Joshua Murphy wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 5:51 PM, Dalerdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Michael Mol wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Dalerdalek1...@gmail.comwrote:
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 10:58:28 -0500, Dale wrote:
I
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:54:22 -0400, Michael Mol wrote:
It makes sense because the ramdisk is using memory that would
otherwise be used for compilation and filesystem caches.
tmpfs isn't implemented as a ramdisk, it's implemented as a thin layer
on top of the filesystem cache.
That's
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:07:30 -0500, Dale wrote:
It makes sense because the ramdisk is using memory that would
otherwise be used for compilation and filesystem caches.
I have 16Gbs here. It's not like I'm going to run out or anything. I
can put half on tmpfs and still have 8Gbs left.
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:07:30 -0500, Dale wrote:
It makes sense because the ramdisk is using memory that would
otherwise be used for compilation and filesystem caches.
I have 16Gbs here. It's not like I'm going to run out or anything. I
can put half on
Dale writes:
Neil Bothwick wrote:
I wasn't thinking of systems with that much memory. Like you, I'd expect
your system to be faster, even if not by much, using tmpfs.
That's what I was expecting too. It is confusing for sure.
Years ago, I used tmpfs, and it was slightly faster, but on
On 07/25/2011 08:54 PM, Grant wrote:
BTW, can anyone tell me why I'm using icedtea6-bin instead of icedtea?
When I first installed icedtea-bin there was no icedtea package, so I
tried to compile it myself using online instructions and gave up in
frustration.
I'm glad you asked, because now
Alex Schuster wrote:
Dale writes:
That's what I was expecting too. It is confusing for sure.
Years ago, I used tmpfs, and it was slightly faster, but on average only
few seconds in an hou-long emerge.
I don't use tmpfs any more, as 8G of RAM is barely enough to run KDe here.
I
Dale wrote:
I run KDE here and it uses less than 1Gbs all the time. Most of the
time it hovers around 1Gb with a lot of junk open. If your used 8Gbs,
you got a lot running or something. o_O
That should read less than 2 Gbs all the time. I hit the wrong
button. lol
Dale
:-) :-)
walt wrote:
On 07/25/2011 08:54 PM, Grant wrote:
BTW, can anyone tell me why I'm using icedtea6-bin instead of icedtea?
When I first installed icedtea-bin there was no icedtea package, so I
tried to compile it myself using online instructions and gave up in
frustration.
I'm glad
Now I got to ask a question. Does this replace the other flash player
thingy that has so many security holes?
No, java != flash, different plugin. Try about:plugins in the URL box
so see what you have.
On 07/27/2011 08:01 AM, Michael Mol wrote:
If you allow tmpfs to be backed by swap...
Does that require some extra configuration?
Adam Carter wrote:
Now I got to ask a question. Does this replace the other flash player
thingy that has so many security holes?
No, java != flash, different plugin. Try about:plugins in the URL box
so see what you have.
OK. I just thought there may be a open source option that
OK. I just thought there may be a open source option that is better or at
least has less security problems.
There are some, lightspark and gnash are in portage. I've never tried
any of them...
Dale writes:
Alex Schuster wrote:
I don't use tmpfs any more, as 8G of RAM is barely enough to run KDe
here.
I run KDE here and it uses less than 1Gbs all the time. Most of the
time it hovers around 1Gb with a lot of junk open. If your used 8Gbs,
you got a lot running or something.
On 07/27/2011 09:04 AM, Dale wrote:
Todd Goodman wrote:
It looks like you're missing linking in of libgcrypt. Maybe ensure you
have an up to date version (or not too up to date.)
Or try emerging without the gcrypt use flag?
I just emerged that for x86 and had no problem. But I don't have
Alex Schuster wrote:
Dale writes:
Alex Schuster wrote:
I don't use tmpfs any more, as 8G of RAM is barely enough to run KDe
here.
I run KDE here and it uses less than 1Gbs all the time. Most of the
time it hovers around 1Gb with a lot of junk open. If your used 8Gbs,
On 07/26/2011 06:07 PM, Pandu Poluan wrote:
Anyone here knows at what time the Gentoo IRC channels are usually active?
In UTC, if possible :)
(Still can't wrap my head around USA time zone codes)
I'd like to commission a survey of, say, MS, google, and Oracle, to see who is
wearing a
walt wrote:
On 07/27/2011 09:04 AM, Dale wrote:
Todd Goodman wrote:
It looks like you're missing linking in of libgcrypt. Maybe ensure you
have an up to date version (or not too up to date.)
Or try emerging without the gcrypt use flag?
I just emerged that for x86 and had no
Tried `emerge -avuND @world` and found out that logrotate blocks portage :
Total: 17 packages (13 upgrades, 1 downgrade, 2 new, 1 in new slot),
Size of downloads: 39,167 kB
Conflict: 1 block (1 unsatisfied)
* Error: The above package list contains packages which cannot be
* installed at the
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 9:23 PM, walt w41...@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/26/2011 06:07 PM, Pandu Poluan wrote:
Anyone here knows at what time the Gentoo IRC channels are usually active?
In UTC, if possible :)
(Still can't wrap my head around USA time zone codes)
I'd like to commission a survey
52 matches
Mail list logo
