Am Sat, 10 Feb 2018 21:20:16 + schrieb Wol's lists:
> On 10/02/18 20:06, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 2:52 PM, Kai Krakow
>> wrote:
>>> Am Sat, 10 Feb 2018 19:38:56 + schrieb Wols Lists:
>>>
On 10/02/18 18:56, Kai Krakow wrote:
> role and /usr takes the role of
On 10/02/18 20:06, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 2:52 PM, Kai Krakow wrote:
Am Sat, 10 Feb 2018 19:38:56 + schrieb Wols Lists:
On 10/02/18 18:56, Kai Krakow wrote:
role and /usr takes the role of /, and /home already took the role of
/usr (that's why it's called /usr, it wa
Am Sat, 10 Feb 2018 15:06:06 -0500 schrieb Rich Freeman:
> On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 2:52 PM, Kai Krakow
> wrote:
>> Am Sat, 10 Feb 2018 19:38:56 + schrieb Wols Lists:
>>
>>> On 10/02/18 18:56, Kai Krakow wrote:
role and /usr takes the role of /, and /home already took the role of
/us
On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 2:52 PM, Kai Krakow wrote:
> Am Sat, 10 Feb 2018 19:38:56 + schrieb Wols Lists:
>
>> On 10/02/18 18:56, Kai Krakow wrote:
>>> role and /usr takes the role of /, and /home already took the role of
>>> /usr (that's why it's called /usr, it was user data in early unix). Th
Am Sat, 10 Feb 2018 19:38:56 + schrieb Wols Lists:
> On 10/02/18 18:56, Kai Krakow wrote:
>> role and /usr takes the role of /, and /home already took the role of
>> /usr (that's why it's called /usr, it was user data in early unix). The
>
> Actually no, not at all. /usr is not short for USeR
On 10/02/18 18:56, Kai Krakow wrote:
> role and /usr takes the role of /, and /home already took the role of /usr
> (that's why it's called /usr, it was user data in early unix). The
Actually no, not at all. /usr is not short for USeR, it's an acronym for
User System Resources, which is why it c
Am Thu, 08 Feb 2018 19:02:10 -0500 schrieb Rich Freeman:
> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 6:18 PM, Wol's lists
> wrote:
>>
>> /var/tmp is defined as the place where programs store stuff like crash
>> recovery files. Mounting it tmpfs is going to screw up any programs
>> that reply on that *defined* behav
Am Fri, 09 Feb 2018 12:30:21 +0200 schrieb gevisz:
> 2018-02-09 10:11 GMT+02:00 Neil Bothwick :
>> On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 23:18:19 +, Wol's lists wrote:
>>
>>> > More specifically, /var/tmp is traditionally supposed to be
>>> > non-volatile (across reboots).
>>> >
>>> > Comparatively the contents
Am Fri, 09 Feb 2018 10:58:35 + schrieb Neil Bothwick:
> On Fri, 09 Feb 2018 10:12:01 +, Peter Humphrey wrote:
>
>> > Why mess around with another tmpfs? Just set PORTAGE_TMPDIR="/tmp" in
>> > make.conf. Job done!
>>
>> Acting on the advice of various Gentoo guides, I have this:
>>
>> #
Am Thu, 08 Feb 2018 14:50:31 -0500 schrieb Rich Freeman:
> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 2:17 PM, Dale wrote:
>> As someone else pointed out, if you start using swap, that generally
>> defeats the purpose of tmpfs.
>>
>>
> I'll just add one thing to this, which I've probably already said ages
> ago:
>
Am Thu, 08 Feb 2018 16:42:23 -0700 schrieb Grant Taylor:
> On 02/08/2018 03:32 PM, gevisz wrote:
>> In this case it would be nice to hear a reason.
>
> I think the reason probably goes back a number of years. When /tmp was
> made volatile (ram / swap backed) there was a need for non-volatile tem
Am Thu, 08 Feb 2018 19:11:48 +0200 schrieb gevisz:
> I never used tmpfs for portage TMPDIR before and now decided to give it
> a try.
>
> I have 8GB of RAM and 12GB of swap on a separate partition.
>
> Do I correctly understood
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Portage_TMPDIR_on_tmpfs that I can sa
2018-02-09 4:15 GMT+02:00 Ian Zimmerman :
> On 2018-02-09 01:15, Wol's lists wrote:
>
>> > Care to cite an example of such a program in the Gentoo repo? I
>> > certainly can't think of any, and I've been running with /var/tmp on
>> > tmpfs for over a decade.
>>
>> I don't know of any.
>
> vim?
>
>
2018-02-09 3:50 GMT+02:00 Dale :
> gevisz wrote:
>>
>> You probably will be surprised, but the main reason I am trying to use
>> tmpfs for /var/tmp/ is not because I want to make emerging chromium
>> faster (I have no hope about that because read somewhere that it will
>> make compilation only 10 p
On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 22:50:58 +, Tsukasa Mcp_Reznor wrote:
> Just adding my 2 cents EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--fail-clean" helps a ton
> with tmpfs.
But it doesn't help much when your chromium build fails with 30 minutes to
go and a quick(ish) "ebuild path/to/ebuild merge" would have fixed it, as
h
2018-02-09 0:50 GMT+02:00 Tsukasa Mcp_Reznor :
> From: freemanr...@gmail.com on behalf of Rich
> Freeman
> Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2018 5:38 PM
> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: /var/tmp on tmpfs
>
> Just adding my 2 cents EMERGE_DEFAU
On 2018-02-09 01:15, Wol's lists wrote:
> > Care to cite an example of such a program in the Gentoo repo? I
> > certainly can't think of any, and I've been running with /var/tmp on
> > tmpfs for over a decade.
>
> I don't know of any.
vim?
Although that choice was recently criticized on the os
gevisz wrote:
>
> You probably will be surprised, but the main reason I am trying to use
> tmpfs for /var/tmp/ is not because I want to make emerging chromium
> faster (I have no hope about that because read somewhere that it will
> make compilation only 10 percent faster) but because I have not to
Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 08/02/18 21:17, Dale wrote:
>> I have 16GBs of memory here and have /var/tmp/portage/ on tmpfs, no
>> ccache. With the growing size of packages, I've had to put several on
>> regular spinning rust to make sure enough space is available. This is
>> my list, so far.
>>
On 02/08/2018 03:32 PM, gevisz wrote:
In this case it would be nice to hear a reason.
I think the reason probably goes back a number of years. When /tmp was
made volatile (ram / swap backed) there was a need for non-volatile temp
space. Thus, /var/tmp was created as non-volatile specificall
From: freemanr...@gmail.com on behalf of Rich Freeman
Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2018 5:38 PM
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: /var/tmp on tmpfs
On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 5:32 PM, gevisz wrote:
>> 2018-02-09 0:19 GMT+02:00
On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 5:32 PM, gevisz wrote:
> 2018-02-09 0:19 GMT+02:00 Nikos Chantziaras :
>> On 08/02/18 23:31, gevisz wrote:
>>>
>>> I do not use ccache, and in my /var/tmp I only have /var/tmp/portage
>>> and /var/tmp/genkernel (I use genkernel to generate initramfs image).
>>>
>>> I never u
On 08/02/18 23:57, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 4:52 PM, gevisz wrote:
However, it probably won't be sooner than
# emerge --update --deep --with-bdeps=y --newuse --backtrack=90 --ask
world --exclude chromium
fails because of the "--exclude chromium" part :), as I have already com
2018-02-09 0:19 GMT+02:00 Nikos Chantziaras :
> On 08/02/18 23:31, gevisz wrote:
>>
>> I do not use ccache, and in my /var/tmp I only have /var/tmp/portage
>> and /var/tmp/genkernel (I use genkernel to generate initramfs image).
>>
>> I never use emerge and genkernel at the same time. So, why not t
On 08/02/18 23:31, gevisz wrote:
I do not use ccache, and in my /var/tmp I only have /var/tmp/portage
and /var/tmp/genkernel (I use genkernel to generate initramfs image).
I never use emerge and genkernel at the same time. So, why not to put
the whole /var/tmp into one tmpfs?
Well, someone her
2018-02-08 23:57 GMT+02:00 Rich Freeman :
> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 4:52 PM, gevisz wrote:
>>
>> However, it probably won't be sooner than
>> # emerge --update --deep --with-bdeps=y --newuse --backtrack=90 --ask
>> world --exclude chromium
>> fails because of the "--exclude chromium" part :), as I
On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 4:52 PM, gevisz wrote:
>
> However, it probably won't be sooner than
> # emerge --update --deep --with-bdeps=y --newuse --backtrack=90 --ask
> world --exclude chromium
> fails because of the "--exclude chromium" part :), as I have already compiled
> the recent vertion of chr
2018-02-08 20:13 GMT+02:00 Rich Freeman :
> On 08/02/18 19:11, gevisz wrote:
>>
>> I never used tmpfs for portage TMPDIR before and now decided to give it a
>> try.
>>
>> I have 8GB of RAM and 12GB of swap on a separate partition.
>>
>> Do I correctly understood
>> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Port
2018-02-08 19:47 GMT+02:00 Nikos Chantziaras :
> On 08/02/18 19:11, gevisz wrote:
>>
>> I never used tmpfs for portage TMPDIR before and now decided
>> to give it a try.
>>
>> I have 8GB of RAM and 12GB of swap on a separate partition.
>>
>> Do I correctly understood
>> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki
On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 2:05 PM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 08/02/18 20:13, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>>
>>> If you're not using ccache, then you don't need /var/tmp to be on tmpfs.
>>> You
>>> should only put /var/tmp/portage on tmpfs.
>>
>>
>> I disagree on this. Unless you have something that use
On 08/02/18 21:17, Dale wrote:
I have 16GBs of memory here and have /var/tmp/portage/ on tmpfs, no
ccache. With the growing size of packages, I've had to put several on
regular spinning rust to make sure enough space is available. This is
my list, so far.
www-client/firefox
www-client/seamonke
On 08/02/18 20:13, Rich Freeman wrote:
If you're not using ccache, then you don't need /var/tmp to be on tmpfs. You
should only put /var/tmp/portage on tmpfs.
I disagree on this. Unless you have something that uses gobs of space
on /var/tmp there is little reason not to make the whole thing a
On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 12:47 PM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 08/02/18 19:11, gevisz wrote:
>>
>> I never used tmpfs for portage TMPDIR before and now decided to give it a
>> try.
>>
>> I have 8GB of RAM and 12GB of swap on a separate partition.
>>
You can try it, but for Chromium these days you
On 08/02/18 19:11, gevisz wrote:
I never used tmpfs for portage TMPDIR before and now decided to give it a try.
I have 8GB of RAM and 12GB of swap on a separate partition.
Do I correctly understood https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Portage_TMPDIR_on_tmpfs
that I can safely set in the fstab the size
34 matches
Mail list logo