Duncan wrote:
Personally, I'd just go with the default nr_inodes. People with 2 gig or
less of real RAM may need to worry about it, especially if they do a lot
of parallel makes (tho with 2 gig I'd crimp on parallel makes way more
than I do, too, so may not have to, but as I've said before,
On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 08:55:43 -0400
Richard Freeman r...@thefreemanclan.net wrote:
I occassionally get swaps, but that is no big deal. In the worst case
swapping is no worse than not using tmpfs at all, and in the typical or
best cases it is far better. It really is a no-lose scenario.
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Frank Petersfrank.pet...@comcast.net wrote:
However, I am not clear on how tmpfs will fail. If the tmpfs mount
becomes filled or exceeds the file limit, since it is essentially just
another disk partition shouldn't it produce a No more space left on device
Frank Peters frank.pet...@comcast.net posted
20090708095104.39a8a53e.frank.pet...@comcast.net, excerpted below, on
Wed, 08 Jul 2009 09:51:04 -0400:
However, I am not clear on how tmpfs will fail. If the tmpfs mount
becomes filled or exceeds the file limit, since it is essentially just
On Wednesday 08 July 2009 14:51:04 Frank Peters wrote:
If the tmpfs mount becomes filled or exceeds the file limit, since it is
essentially just another disk partition shouldn't it produce a No more
space left on device error?
No, it isn't a disk partition. It's a file system in RAM, with no
Paul Hartman paul.hartman+gen...@gmail.com posted
58965d8a0907080737s2c4a71dah3c9b54e55f02d...@mail.gmail.com, excerpted
below, on Wed, 08 Jul 2009 09:37:01 -0500:
In other words if you have a 2 gig tmpfs it's not going to eat up 2gb of
your RAM unless you have actually put 2gb of files onto
On 7/8/09, Frank Peters frank.pet...@comcast.net wrote:
However, I am not clear on how tmpfs will fail. If the tmpfs mount
becomes filled or exceeds the file limit, since it is essentially just
another disk partition shouldn't it produce a No more space left on device
error?
Yes it does. Or
Peter Humphrey wrote:
On Wednesday 08 July 2009 14:51:04 Frank Peters wrote:
Or is the system designed to extend the tmpfs through swapping?
Sort of. If the tmpfs becomes full, part of it that isn't needed at the
moment is swapped to disk, exactly as if it had been program space.
This is
Arttu V. arttu...@gmail.com posted
fecdbac60907080910p1ac75f11pa686a0bb36dad...@mail.gmail.com, excerpted
below, on Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:10:12 +0300:
Or at least that's what it did to me last week when I was experimenting
something utterly stupid with kernel memory settings on a box with 2GB
Frank Peters frank.pet...@comcast.net posted
20090707103623.17cd03be.frank.pet...@comcast.net, excerpted below, on
Tue, 07 Jul 2009 10:36:23 -0400:
After reading through the thread on this list about the benefits of
mounting PORTAGE_TMPDIR as tmpfs, I decided that I will be doing this
mount
10 matches
Mail list logo
