Re: [gentoo-user] SSD partitioning and migration
On Saturday 20 Jul 2013 06:12:40 Dale wrote: Bruce Hill wrote: On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 08:34:27PM -0500, Dale wrote: Stop using disk and build in RAM: tmpfs /var/tmp/portagetmpfs size=7000M,nr_inodes=1M 0 0 tmpfs /dev/shm tmpfs nodev,nosuid,noexec 0 0 workstation ~ # free -m total used free sharedbuffers cached Mem: 15798 3711 12087 0 0 937 -/+ buffers/cache: 2772 13025 Swap: 8103 0 8103 He may not have enough to do that tho. Some folks only have 4Gbs or less still. That won't be enough for LOo. Heck, my 16Gbs wasn't enough at one time. I had to either let it be on HDD or set it to a higher amount than the default half. I also tested the time difference once before, it didn't really make much difference. It just saves wear on a drive is all. Dale If 16GB of RAM wasn't enough, ydiw. I've used that line of 7G forever, and run app-office/libreoffice, as well as firefox and some other big app (forget it's name) and _never_ had a problem. Well, a while back, OOo and LOo wanted more than 8Gbs. It wasn't my need but what portage looked for. Then someone did some changes and reduced that need and it worked. From my understanding, there was some code clean up that helped in that. I think it looks for 6Gbs now. From the ebuild: CHECKREQS_MEMORY=512M CHECKREQS_DISK_BUILD=6G It used to be more than that. If it didn't have enough, it stopped. Even when I would override that setting, it would still run out of space more often than not. As a matter of fact, I still have the command in my freq used commands file that I used to fix it: mount -t tmpfs -o size=12g tmpfs /var/tmp/portage Does it stop dead or does it start to page into swap? -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] SSD partitioning and migration
On Sunday 21 Jul 2013 00:45:55 Neil Bothwick wrote: On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 07:02:35 +0800, William Kenworthy wrote: Yes, and it's mounted ro to minimise the risk of such damage. I used to do this (keeping a rescue partitio) ... but found it was useful only some of the time. Nowadays I just leave a sysrescuecd USB key on top of the case :) Same features, useful in more circumstances, less maintenance overhead. This sin't a rescue partition, it's just a GRUB menu entry and a copy f the ISO in /boot, so far less maintenance even than making sure a USB stick stays put. Plus it is much faster to boot. An interesting idea you present, Neil. So far I've been maintaining a small rescue system. My /boot is only 100MB so if I wanted to follow your idea I'd have to move and resize everything else on this MBR setup. I have twin spinning disks with two LVM sets in logical partitions, so I assume I'd have to destroy those and re-create them. What a lot of work! Oh, or I could sacrifice (part of) a swap partition to expand /boot into. -- Regards, Peter
Re: [gentoo-user] SSD partitioning and migration
On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 10:14:22 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote: This sin't a rescue partition, it's just a GRUB menu entry and a copy f the ISO in /boot, so far less maintenance even than making sure a USB stick stays put. Plus it is much faster to boot. An interesting idea you present, Neil. So far I've been maintaining a small rescue system. My /boot is only 100MB so if I wanted to follow your idea I'd have to move and resize everything else on this MBR setup. I have twin spinning disks with two LVM sets in logical partitions, so I assume I'd have to destroy those and re-create them. What a lot of work! Yes, probably too much. Oh, or I could sacrifice (part of) a swap partition to expand /boot into. That would be easier, you could always add more swap from an LV, unless you use it for suspend. -- Neil Bothwick the sum of all human intelligence is constant, only the number of humans increases. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] SSD partitioning and migration
Mick wrote: On Saturday 20 Jul 2013 06:12:40 Dale wrote: Bruce Hill wrote: If 16GB of RAM wasn't enough, ydiw. I've used that line of 7G forever, and run app-office/libreoffice, as well as firefox and some other big app (forget it's name) and _never_ had a problem. Well, a while back, OOo and LOo wanted more than 8Gbs. It wasn't my need but what portage looked for. Then someone did some changes and reduced that need and it worked. From my understanding, there was some code clean up that helped in that. I think it looks for 6Gbs now. From the ebuild: CHECKREQS_MEMORY=512M CHECKREQS_DISK_BUILD=6G It used to be more than that. If it didn't have enough, it stopped. Even when I would override that setting, it would still run out of space more often than not. As a matter of fact, I still have the command in my freq used commands file that I used to fix it: mount -t tmpfs -o size=12g tmpfs /var/tmp/portage Does it stop dead or does it start to page into swap? Actually, portage looks for enough space before even starting and still does. However, when I force it to ignore it, it stops and says it ran out of space. I'd just rather it didn't use swap anyway. Either way, OOo and LOo used to need lots of space. I think there was some code cleanup and maybe some other changes that reduced that a lot. I think there was also some gcc changes to but not sure on that. I did some more searching after my last post, at one point it looked for at least 12GBs from what I found. That was the largest setting I found. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
Re: [gentoo-user] SSD partitioning and migration
Neil Bothwick wrote: On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 15:02:48 -0500, Dale wrote: I also keep the last two versions of sysrescue for my USB stick. How do you copy one to a stick when you need to rescue an unbootable system? I prefer to keep the ISO in /boot, no need for a USB stick then. It's hard to put it in /boot when /boot doesn't have the space. I need to redo some stuff and make /boot larger. I'm not looking forward to that either. By the way, I do update the stick every once in a while and just keep the ISO in case I need to redo the USB stick for some reason. Sometimes I use the stick for something else and have to put the ISO back. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
Re: [gentoo-user] SSD partitioning and migration
Neil Bothwick wrote: On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 14:50:29 -0500, Dale wrote: Neil, you know how payback is right? ROFL That's the one with Mel Gibson? It starts with a B. Ironic huh? Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
Re: [gentoo-user] SSD partitioning and migration
On Sunday 21 Jul 2013 10:40:11 Dale wrote: Mick wrote: On Saturday 20 Jul 2013 06:12:40 Dale wrote: Bruce Hill wrote: If 16GB of RAM wasn't enough, ydiw. I've used that line of 7G forever, and run app-office/libreoffice, as well as firefox and some other big app (forget it's name) and _never_ had a problem. Well, a while back, OOo and LOo wanted more than 8Gbs. It wasn't my need but what portage looked for. Then someone did some changes and reduced that need and it worked. From my understanding, there was some code clean up that helped in that. I think it looks for 6Gbs now. From the ebuild: CHECKREQS_MEMORY=512M CHECKREQS_DISK_BUILD=6G It used to be more than that. If it didn't have enough, it stopped. Even when I would override that setting, it would still run out of space more often than not. As a matter of fact, I still have the command in my freq used commands file that I used to fix it: mount -t tmpfs -o size=12g tmpfs /var/tmp/portage Does it stop dead or does it start to page into swap? Actually, portage looks for enough space before even starting and still does. However, when I force it to ignore it, it stops and says it ran out of space. I'd just rather it didn't use swap anyway. Either way, OOo and LOo used to need lots of space. I think there was some code cleanup and maybe some other changes that reduced that a lot. I think there was also some gcc changes to but not sure on that. I did some more searching after my last post, at one point it looked for at least 12GBs from what I found. That was the largest setting I found. Right, so running /var/tmp/portage on a tmpfs definitely won't work on an old box of mine with only a few MB of memory. -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] SSD partitioning and migration
On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 10:57:24 +0100, Mick wrote: Actually, portage looks for enough space before even starting and still does. However, when I force it to ignore it, it stops and says it ran out of space. I'd just rather it didn't use swap anyway. Either way, OOo and LOo used to need lots of space. I think there was some code cleanup and maybe some other changes that reduced that a lot. I think there was also some gcc changes to but not sure on that. I did some more searching after my last post, at one point it looked for at least 12GBs from what I found. That was the largest setting I found. Right, so running /var/tmp/portage on a tmpfs definitely won't work on an old box of mine with only a few MB of memory. It will, because it starts to use swap, but then there's no benefit to using tmpfs in the first place. What I used to do on my netbook was run tmpfs for /tmp and have PORTAGE_TMPDIR use that by default but set specific packages to use a different, on disk, location % cat /etc/portage/package.env/libreoffice app-office/libreoffice disk-tmpdir.conf ]% cat /etc/portage/env/disk-tmpdir.conf PORTAGE_TMPDIR=/mnt/scratch where /mnt/scratch is a directory I use for all sorts of non-permanent files. -- Neil Bothwick The truth shall make you free, but first it shall piss you off. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] SSD partitioning and migration
Mick wrote: On Sunday 21 Jul 2013 10:40:11 Dale wrote: Actually, portage looks for enough space before even starting and still does. However, when I force it to ignore it, it stops and says it ran out of space. I'd just rather it didn't use swap anyway. Either way, OOo and LOo used to need lots of space. I think there was some code cleanup and maybe some other changes that reduced that a lot. I think there was also some gcc changes to but not sure on that. I did some more searching after my last post, at one point it looked for at least 12GBs from what I found. That was the largest setting I found. Right, so running /var/tmp/portage on a tmpfs definitely won't work on an old box of mine with only a few MB of memory. Not likely. It may for some smaller packages but not for the large ones for sure. When I first built this rig, I only had 8GBs of ram and I could only use it when all the packages to update were smaller ones. Generally, I just left it on a HDD. The biggest issue that I run into still, failed emerges are left on there and take up space that the next packages may need. Thing is, they have to be there to see what caused it to fail. Of course, the same thing can happen when on a HDD as well. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
Re: [gentoo-user] SSD partitioning and migration
On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 04:50:42 -0500, Dale wrote: That's the one with Mel Gibson? It starts with a B. Ironic huh? Actually, his surname appears to mean son of a GibiBit ;-) -- Neil Bothwick Hm..what's this red button fo|'ยป.'NO CARRIER signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] SSD partitioning and migration
On Sunday 21 Jul 2013 10:21:45 Neil Bothwick wrote: On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 10:14:22 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote: What a lot of work! Yes, probably too much. Oh, or I could sacrifice (part of) a swap partition to expand /boot into. That would be easier, you could always add more swap from an LV, unless you use it for suspend. I have more swap than I need, arranged thus: $ grep swap /etc/fstab /dev/sda3 noneswapsw,pri=10 0 0 /dev/sdb3 noneswapsw,pri=10 0 0 /dev/sda7 noneswapsw,pri=10 0 /dev/sdb7 noneswapsw,pri=10 0 ...in which sdX3 is 2GB (not GBs, Dale - time doesn't come into it ;-) ) and sdX7 is 10GB. Thus the big swap areas are only used when necessary to compile LO, Firefox and pals. I could easily halve sda3 and still have plenty of swap. No, I don't suspend this box because it's permanently active running four BOINC jobs at a time. -- Regards, Peter
[gentoo-user] more on SSD: swap
OK, now i have my system successfully installed and running on my new SSD. now i have to decide what to do with the rest of the disk (it's a 256MB samsung). the first big question is: what about swap? i found some web pages (perhaps old) stating that it's not wise to put swap on the SSD because of all the read/writes. but apparently from what i read on the recent thread on this list, that shouldn't be much of a concern now. i also read somewhere that if you have swap on the SSD and want to avoid unnecessary read/writes, you can reduce swappiness. i have 12GB RAM and i think normally i don't really need swap space on disk, so i thought that could be a good idea. so what i'm planning to do now is: - put swap on the SSD - reduce swappiness - put /var/tmp/portage on tmpfs so, do you guys think that's a good setup?
Re: [gentoo-user] more on SSD: swap
On 21-Jul-13 16:31, luis jure wrote: so what i'm planning to do now is: - put swap on the SSD - reduce swappiness - put /var/tmp/portage on tmpfs so, do you guys think that's a good setup? Sounds good to me. But with 12GB RAM the question is: Do you need swap at all? Jarry -- ___ This mailbox accepts e-mails only from selected mailing-lists! Everything else is considered to be spam and therefore deleted.
Re: [gentoo-user] more on SSD: swap
On 21/07/13 15:31, luis jure wrote: OK, now i have my system successfully installed and running on my new SSD. now i have to decide what to do with the rest of the disk (it's a 256MB samsung). the first big question is: what about swap? i found some web pages (perhaps old) stating that it's not wise to put swap on the SSD because of all the read/writes. but apparently from what i read on the recent thread on this list, that shouldn't be much of a concern now. i also read somewhere that if you have swap on the SSD and want to avoid unnecessary read/writes, you can reduce swappiness. i have 12GB RAM and i think normally i don't really need swap space on disk, so i thought that could be a good idea. so what i'm planning to do now is: - put swap on the SSD - reduce swappiness - put /var/tmp/portage on tmpfs so, do you guys think that's a good setup? TBH, unless you are really stressing your RAM usage (Lots of VMs or Java applications, stuff like that) I'd go without swap. I've been running swapless on 8GB of RAM for a number of years now with no issues. As for /var/tmp/portage on tmpfs, this is fine 95% of the time, however even with ~2GB I allocate some packages (Chromium, LibreOffice, ect) will fail to compile due to lack of space. In these cases I just un-mount /var/tmp/portage, do the compile on the disk, and then re-mount it.
Re: [gentoo-user] more on SSD: swap
On 21/07/2013 16:34, Jarry wrote: On 21-Jul-13 16:31, luis jure wrote: so what i'm planning to do now is: - put swap on the SSD - reduce swappiness - put /var/tmp/portage on tmpfs so, do you guys think that's a good setup? Sounds good to me. But with 12GB RAM the question is: Do you need swap at all? Jarry yes, he does, but not for the reason most people think tmpfs is backed by swap :-) Swap was originally introduced way back in the 60s as a workaround for computers that had far less RAM than the workload strictly needed. This has not fundamentally changed in any significant way 40 years later so like you, I always favour having enough RAM. And RAM is MUCH cheaper than SSDs and requires no fiddling and tweaking to be able to use it. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] more on SSD: swap
on 2013-07-21 at 15:42 Peter Wilmott wrote: TBH, unless you are really stressing your RAM usage (Lots of VMs or Java applications, stuff like that) I'd go without swap. it's true that most of the time 12BG is more than enough for me and i don't use swap space on disk. i wouldn't go for a swapless system, though, specially since i'm going to put things on tmpfs. a few GB (i'm thinking about 8) of swap space on disk won't hurt, and i'd feel safer. that's the idea of reducing swappiness to 1 or 0, anyway. best, lj
Re: [gentoo-user] more on SSD: swap
Am 21.07.2013 17:39, schrieb luis jure: on 2013-07-21 at 15:42 Peter Wilmott wrote: TBH, unless you are really stressing your RAM usage (Lots of VMs or Java applications, stuff like that) I'd go without swap. it's true that most of the time 12BG is more than enough for me and i don't use swap space on disk. i wouldn't go for a swapless system, though, specially since i'm going to put things on tmpfs. a few GB (i'm thinking about 8) of swap space on disk won't hurt, and i'd feel safer. that's the idea of reducing swappiness to 1 or 0, anyway. Also think about using zswap or frontswap. Both work well despite still being in staging in current kernels. Zswap will be stabilized in kernel 3.11, I think. Regards, Florian Philipp signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] more on SSD: swap
Am Sonntag, 21. Juli 2013, 11:31:41 schrieb luis jure: OK, now i have my system successfully installed and running on my new SSD. now i have to decide what to do with the rest of the disk (it's a 256MB samsung). the first big question is: what about swap? i found some web pages (perhaps old) stating that it's not wise to put swap on the SSD because of all the read/writes. but apparently from what i read on the recent thread on this list, that shouldn't be much of a concern now. i also read somewhere that if you have swap on the SSD and want to avoid unnecessary read/writes, you can reduce swappiness. i have 12GB RAM and i think normally i don't really need swap space on disk, so i thought that could be a good idea. so what i'm planning to do now is: - put swap on the SSD don't make a swap partition, use a swapfile. - reduce swappiness only swapon if you really need it. - put /var/tmp/portage on tmpfs good, but also put /tmp on tmpfs. And maybe /var on a harddisk. -- #163933
Re: [gentoo-user] more on SSD: swap
On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 21:39:29 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: - put /var/tmp/portage on tmpfs good, but also put /tmp on tmpfs. Doesn't the FHS spec say that /var/tmp should survive a reboot? So the correct approach is to put /tmp on a tmpfs and set PORTAGE_TMPDIR to /tmp. -- Neil Bothwick Mosquito - designed to make houseflies look better. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] more on SSD: swap
should - not must have to survive. And nothing in /var/tmp/portage is important enough. So just let it get lost. I would not put PORTAGE_TMPDIR to /tmp because if it accidentally fills up, you have a big problem. While a seperate tmpfs /var/tmp/portage... well nobody cares if it is full. Yeah, emerge fails but that's it. 2013/7/21 Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 21:39:29 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: - put /var/tmp/portage on tmpfs good, but also put /tmp on tmpfs. Doesn't the FHS spec say that /var/tmp should survive a reboot? So the correct approach is to put /tmp on a tmpfs and set PORTAGE_TMPDIR to /tmp. -- Neil Bothwick Mosquito - designed to make houseflies look better.
Re: [gentoo-user] more on SSD: swap
On 21/07/13 22:31, luis jure wrote: OK, now i have my system successfully installed and running on my new SSD. now i have to decide what to do with the rest of the disk (it's a 256MB samsung). the first big question is: what about swap? i found some web pages (perhaps old) stating that it's not wise to put swap on the SSD because of all the read/writes. but apparently from what i read on the recent thread on this list, that shouldn't be much of a concern now. i also read somewhere that if you have swap on the SSD and want to avoid unnecessary read/writes, you can reduce swappiness. i have 12GB RAM and i think normally i don't really need swap space on disk, so i thought that could be a good idea. so what i'm planning to do now is: - put swap on the SSD - reduce swappiness - put /var/tmp/portage on tmpfs so, do you guys think that's a good setup? swap: this will make one of the bigger speedups to the system when you need swap. swap is good - yes you can do without it, but the day comes when you REALLY do want it, and ... [crash!] ... otherwise it can just sit there waiting :) /etc/sysctl.conf: #vm.swappiness=1 #vm.vfs_cache_pressure=50 these were recommended to me for running vm's and seem to do the job (usually I am running with a several GB of swap (16G ram, 16G swap) in use ... these settings definitely minimise it though big rsync jobs stall when it fills ram+swap. /var/tmp/portage is a more difficult one ... a long thread way back (Dale, I think you were in it) looking at speed showed there was no speed advantage to compiling in tempfs because spinner) disk caching was so good the data only hit the disk when necessary. I presume the same will apply with compiling and SSD's in that the actual writes will be minimal (in the scheme of things) so it shouldn't be a worry. My experience with compiling in tempfs is that it works, but has a much higher failure rate than on disk - i.e., things like OO/Lo, KDE, gcc and glibc have large space requirements that you must make sure tmpfs can satisfy before you start. And if its a busy machine actively using lots of ram it gets hard. I am making the point that most machines today are way overprovisioned but when you are near the edge, saying things like I gave xGB ram and never needed swap, so you wont either is misrepresenting the situation. BillK
[gentoo-user] openssl-1.0.1c problems
I can not use openssl-1.0.1c as in the example below: wget https://qasecommerce.cielo.com.br/servicos/ecommwsec.do I can not use openssl with ruby Currently I use 1.0.0j is works perfectly But some libraries depend version 1.0.1.c including libreoffice-bin I appreciate everyone's help. Alexandre Riveira
[gentoo-user] Question about qemu QEMU_SOFTMMU_TARGETS and QEMU_USER_TARGETS
I'm usually pretty good a Google, but I've run into a brick wall with qemu's QEMU_SOFTMMU_TARGETS and QEMU_USER_TARGETS settings. I find that wine on a 64-bit-only machine does not support 32-bit Windows programs. Years ago, I was able to build a 32-bit qemu Gentoo guest, and run wine 32-bit mode on that. I need to try it again, but I have no clue what QEMU_SOFTMMU_TARGETS and QEMU_USER_TARGETS settings to use. I repeat, I'm on a 64-bit Intel machine, and I want to emulate Intel 32-bit. Do these variables refer to the guest architecture or the host architecture? In plain English, given host and guest architectures which of the following combinations do I use... QEMU_SOFTMMU_TARGETS=host QEMU_USER_TARGETS=host QEMU_SOFTMMU_TARGETS=host QEMU_USER_TARGETS=guest QEMU_SOFTMMU_TARGETS=guest QEMU_USER_TARGETS=host QEMU_SOFTMMU_TARGETS=guest QEMU_USER_TARGETS=guest -- Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org I don't run desktop environments; I run useful applications
