В Втр, 12/08/2008 в 15:05 +, Beso пишет:
does it really worth to compile OOo instead of just downloading the
bin version?! the last time i've tried it the ammount of space taken
hostage, the slowness of compilation and the really small
improvement in speed (as well as the other deps to
On Wednesday 13 August 2008 23:54:48 Matthias Bethke wrote:
Hi Peter,
on Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 11:04:13AM +0100, you wrote:
You could always allocate another swap partition. One of my boxes has 4
2GB partitions on different disks, though that's far more than I need.
You still get the
Matthias Bethke [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Thu, 14 Aug 2008 00:54:48 +0200:
I have two 500G disks, mirrored in a software-RAID0 on all partitions
but swap which is on two separate 16G partitions.
OK, if it's RAID-0, it's striped, not mirrored, and you have
Duncan wrote:
But you're correct about swap, at least if you have them set at the same
priority. The kernel will automatically stripe across all swap
partitions set at the same priority, so if you have multiple disks, put a
swap partition on each and set the priority equal (in fstab if you
Hi Duncan,
on Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 08:07:40AM +, you wrote:
I have two 500G disks, mirrored in a software-RAID0 on all partitions
but swap which is on two separate 16G partitions.
OK, if it's RAID-0, it's striped, not mirrored, and you have NO
redundancy at all. If either of those
Hi Richard,
on Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 02:08:26PM -0400, you wrote:
Note that in such a situation if either disk fails you're likely to end up
with a panic when your swap device isn't accessible. If uptime is a
concern mirrored swap is better (but slower).
Of course, if you're running on
Richard Freeman [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Thu, 14 Aug 2008
14:08:26 -0400:
Duncan wrote:
But you're correct about swap[...] at the same priority
Note that in such a situation if either disk fails you're likely to end
up with a panic when your swap
Hi Peter,
on Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 11:04:13AM +0100, you wrote:
You could always allocate another swap partition. One of my boxes has 4 2GB
partitions on different disks, though that's far more than I need.
You still get the benefit of automatic striping so if they're on
independent channels
Duncan wrote:
Now, if you /really/ want to make a difference in portage's speed,
consider pointing PORTAGE_TMPDIR at a tmpfs. If you've a decent amount
of memory, it'll make a HUGE difference, since all the files it normally
creates only temporarily in by default, /var/tmp/portage/* will be
Morgan Wesström wrote:
If I follow this advice, what happens when I compile something like
Open Office which allocates 3-4GB in /var/tmp during compilation and
I only have 2GB physical RAM in the computer?
If all the Virtual Memory (VM = RAM+SWAP) is exhausted the kernel will
try to kill the
2008/8/12 Morgan Wesström [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Duncan wrote:
Now, if you /really/ want to make a difference in portage's speed,
consider pointing PORTAGE_TMPDIR at a tmpfs. If you've a decent amount of
memory, it'll make a HUGE difference, since all the files it normally
creates only
2008/8/12 Juan Fco. Giordana [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Morgan Wesström wrote:
If I follow this advice, what happens when I compile something like
Open Office which allocates 3-4GB in /var/tmp during compilation and
I only have 2GB physical RAM in the computer?
If all the Virtual Memory (VM =
you'll use swap partition. but you'll not allocate all that ram space
with openoffice. i've tried to compile it twice. first time it was on
disk and it took almost 14 hours of compilation. the second time was on
tmpfs with 3.8gb and a 6gb swap file and it took less than 8 hours and
If I
2008/8/12 Morgan Wesström [EMAIL PROTECTED]
you'll use swap partition. but you'll not allocate all that ram space with
openoffice. i've tried to compile it twice. first time it was on disk and it
took almost 14 hours of compilation. the second time was on tmpfs with 3.8gb
and a 6gb swap file
On Tuesday 12 August 2008 10:22:56 Morgan Wesström wrote:
If I understand [...] correctly, I wouldn't be able to compile Open Office
on tmpfs with my 2GB RAM and 1GB swap. I would have to increase the swap
space to be able to hold all the temporary files from the compilation,
wouldn't I?
Beso [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted
below, on Tue, 12 Aug 2008 08:23:06 +:
2008/8/12 Morgan Wesström [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Duncan wrote:
Now, if you /really/ want to make a difference in portage's speed,
consider pointing PORTAGE_TMPDIR at a tmpfs.
This advice
2008/8/12 Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Beso [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted
below, on Tue, 12 Aug 2008 08:30:44 +:
if you're still using something the kernel won't kill nothing. the
behaviour you're referencing is the kernel cached pages. when you use
something
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 8:05 AM, Beso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/8/12 Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Beso [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted
below, on Tue, 12 Aug 2008 08:30:44 +:
if you're still using something the kernel won't kill nothing. the
behaviour you're
Beso [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted
below, on Tue, 12 Aug 2008 15:05:46 +:
does it really worth to compile OOo instead of just downloading the bin
version?! the last time i've tried it the ammount of space taken
hostage, the slowness of compilation and the really
Hi Juan,
on Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 05:18:53AM -0300, you wrote:
If I follow this advice, what happens when I compile something like
Open Office which allocates 3-4GB in /var/tmp during compilation and
I only have 2GB physical RAM in the computer?
If all the Virtual Memory (VM = RAM+SWAP) is
Wil Reichert [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted
below, on Tue, 12 Aug 2008 08:38:57 -0700:
Every time you re-install the -bin package you need to re-accept their
license (er whatever, registaration perhaps?) at first run. Annoys me
enough to compile it myself.
Ugh, I've
Juan Fco. Giordana [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 12 Aug 2008 00:28:14
-0300:
Instead of creating symlinks to /var and /tmp I've opted for doing bind
mounts to these directories because I think it's more manageable this
way. Also I'm taking into
22 matches
Mail list logo
