On 7 January 2015 13:16:03 GMT+00:00, Rich Freeman <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 3:36 AM, Neil Bothwick <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Personally, I wouldn't bother, there is not that much of a gain when > > using tmpfs, so if you want to keep all the working files after > > compilation, the extra overhead and complexity of copying to hard > disk > > would make it not worthwhile. Just stick to a spinning disk. > > I've found that compiling on tmpfs has a fairly significant > performance gain, but you'd completely negate it of you copied > everything to a hard drive anyway. > > When you build on a hard drive the filesystem is going to treat all > those intermediate object files with great care and ensure that they > aren't lost in the event of a power failure, forcing them to be > committed to disk within 30 seconds (typically) and blocking IO when > that happens. Then a minute later it is going to go and have to > delete all those files it so carefully committed. > > When you build on tmpfs nothing gets written to your filesystem except > for the final output of the build. All those intermediate files are > deleted having never blocked your disk IO. However, if your goal is > to actually save them anyway, then you might as well just build on > disk - moving files doesn't take all that much IO on most filesystems. > > If your goal is to create tarballs of the saved builds then you're > probably still better off building on tmpfs and creating the tarball > via a hook or something. > > -- > Rich
That's why I thought XFS may help. Reports of the speed gain from tmpfs are quite mixed, but I do use it myself. -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
