Michael Mol wrote: > On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Dale <rdalek1...@gmail.com > <mailto:rdalek1...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Michael Mol wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 7:13 AM, Dale <rdalek1...@gmail.com >> <mailto:rdalek1...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Nicolas Sebrecht wrote: >> > The 07/09/12, Dale wrote: >> > >> >> The thing is tho, whether it is using the memory as cache >> or using it >> >> as >> >> tmpfs, it is the same memory. There is no difference. >> That's the >> >> whole >> >> point. >> > Feel free to take your own assumptions as undeniable truth. >> The way the >> > kernel work with memory is the key, of course. >> > >> > Now, as long as you blind yourself with statements like >> that, I'm not >> > going to respond anymore. I guess you need to make some >> basic research. >> > >> >> I understand how the kernel uses memory. That's why it >> doesn't matter >> if you put portage's work directory on tmpfs or not. I been >> using Linux >> for a pretty good long while now. I have a pretty good >> understanding of >> it, especially the things that I use. >> >> Respond or not, I know what I tested and what the results >> were. They >> were not just my tests and results either. >> >> >> Nobody is disagreeing with your test results. In fact, they're >> not even disagreeing with you that they mean what you think they >> mean within the context you're testing. They're disagreeing with >> your extrapolation of your results to other contexts. In short, >> all other things being equal, your test results work out for >> someone in the exact same circumstances as yourself...but there >> are a _lot_ of other things that need to be equal! >> >> Filesystem mount options can have an impact. For example, let's >> say your filesystem is configured to make writes synchronous, for >> general data integrity purposes. That would slow PORTAGE_TMP down >> something _fierce_. >> >> Someone might be tweaking any number of the knobs under 'vm' in >> /proc. vm.swappiness, vm.dirty_* or vm.min_free_kbytes are ones >> that caught my eye, but really most of them in there look relevant. >> >> Or consider that someone else might be running drop_caches, or >> even sync() while your code is running. (Heck, if there's a >> database, even an sqlite database, on the same filesystem, that's >> almost a guarantee.) >> >> These may seem to be obvious, but these are the kinds of things >> people were trying to get you to be willing to acknowledge before >> you made blanket assertions which covered them. >> >> -- >> :wq > > > Someone could be getting rays from Mars but I am not testing > that. What I tested was this, Run emerge with portages work > directory on disk. Then run same command with portage's work > directory on tmpfs. Then compare the results. No other changes > except for where portage's work directory is located, hard drive > or ram. This was done on a NORMAL system that most ANY user would > be using. I'm not concerned with some rare or exotic setup, just > a normal setup. If someone is running some exotic setup, then > they need to test that to see whether it helps or not because I > did not test for that sort of system. I didn't test for rays from > Mars either. LOL > > > Running databases on the same filesystem as PORTAGE_TMP is not a rare > or exotic setup. Anyone who doesn't use a separate /home or separate > portage temp is in a circumstance like that. > > > -- > :wq
Well, I have /home on its own partition, like most likely everyone does. At the time, I was not using LVM either. At the time, I had a pretty much default install except that the portage tree was on its own partition since I wanted to keep it from fragmenting all of /usr with all those constantly changing little files. I also use defaults when mounting file systems too. Nothing exotic or weird or anything. So again, just testing on as normal a system as there could be to get some real world results. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
