Re: [gentoo-user] tmp on tmpfs

2017-05-31 Thread Mick
On Wednesday 31 May 2017 12:36:37 Kent Fredric wrote: > On Sun, 28 May 2017 11:07:03 +0100 > > Mick wrote: > > Did you also have zbud enabled at the time? > > Historical kernel configs say yes: > > xzcat /root/kernels/04.04.26-gentoo/2016-11-30-23-33-29_success.xz |

Re: [gentoo-user] tmp on tmpfs

2017-05-30 Thread Kent Fredric
On Sun, 28 May 2017 11:07:03 +0100 Mick wrote: > Did you also have zbud enabled at the time? Historical kernel configs say yes: xzcat /root/kernels/04.04.26-gentoo/2016-11-30-23-33-29_success.xz | grep -E "Z(SWAP|BUD)" CONFIG_ZSWAP=y CONFIG_ZBUD=y Though I should

Re: [gentoo-user] tmp on tmpfs

2017-05-28 Thread Mick
On Friday 26 May 2017 10:36:40 Kent Fredric wrote: > On Wed, 24 May 2017 15:45:45 +0300 > > Andrew Savchenko wrote: > > - smaller CPU overhead: not every i/o is being compressed, e.g. if > > there is sill enough RAM available it is used without compression > > overhead as

Re: [gentoo-user] tmp on tmpfs

2017-05-25 Thread Kent Fredric
On Wed, 24 May 2017 15:45:45 +0300 Andrew Savchenko wrote: > - smaller CPU overhead: not every i/o is being compressed, e.g. if > there is sill enough RAM available it is used without compression > overhead as usual, but if memory is not enough, swapped out pages > are being

Re: [gentoo-user] tmp on tmpfs

2017-05-24 Thread R0b0t1
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 12:16 AM, Ian Zimmerman wrote: > So what are gentoo users' opinions on this matter of faith? > On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 12:34 AM, wrote: > Either way, it'd be nice if someone actually benchmarked this. > I don't have exhaustive

Re: [gentoo-user] tmp on tmpfs

2017-05-24 Thread Andrew Savchenko
Hi, On Wed, 24 May 2017 05:34:09 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 1:16 AM, Ian Zimmerman wrote: > > > > I have long been in the camp that thinks tmpfs for /tmp has no > > advantages (and may have disadvantages) over a normal filesystem like > > ext3, because

Re: [gentoo-user] tmp on tmpfs

2017-05-24 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 5:43 AM, wrote: > On 17-05-24 at 05:34, Rich Freeman wrote: > [..] >> Others have mentioned zram. I've used it, but unless something has >> changed one of its limitations is that it can't give up memory. That >> is less of an issue if you're using

Re: [gentoo-user] tmp on tmpfs

2017-05-24 Thread gentoo-user
On 17-05-24 at 05:34, Rich Freeman wrote: [..] > Others have mentioned zram. I've used it, but unless something has > changed one of its limitations is that it can't give up memory. That > is less of an issue if you're using swap since it can be swapped out > if idle. However, if you're not

Re: [gentoo-user] tmp on tmpfs

2017-05-24 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 1:16 AM, Ian Zimmerman wrote: > > I have long been in the camp that thinks tmpfs for /tmp has no > advantages (and may have disadvantages) over a normal filesystem like > ext3, because the files there are normally so small that they will stay > in the

Re: [gentoo-user] tmp on tmpfs

2017-05-24 Thread Andrew Tselischev
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 10:16:56PM -0700, Ian Zimmerman wrote: > So what are gentoo users' opinions on this matter of faith? > > I have long been in the camp that thinks tmpfs for /tmp has no > advantages (and may have disadvantages) over a normal filesystem like > ext3, because the files there

Re: [gentoo-user] tmp on tmpfs

2017-05-23 Thread gentoo-user
On 17-05-23 at 22:16, Ian Zimmerman wrote: > So what are gentoo users' opinions on this matter of faith? I use an ext4 partition backed by zram. Gives me ~3x compression on the things I normally have lying around there (plain text files) and ensures that anything I throw there (or programs throw

[gentoo-user] tmp on tmpfs

2017-05-23 Thread Ian Zimmerman
So what are gentoo users' opinions on this matter of faith? I have long been in the camp that thinks tmpfs for /tmp has no advantages (and may have disadvantages) over a normal filesystem like ext3, because the files there are normally so small that they will stay in the page cache 100% of the