Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 06:31:24 -0500, Dale wrote: > >> Not quite. The theory is that if you put portages work directory on >> tmpfs, then all the writes and such are done in ram which is faster. If >> you have portages work directory on disk, it will be slower because the >> disk is slower. > But the disk is not used when you have enough RAM to keep everything > cached. So you are comparing the speed of storing all files in RAM with > the speed of storing all files in RAM, so it is hardly surprising that > the two tests give similar results. > > The fact that in one scenario the files do end up on disk is irrelevant, > you are working from RAM copies of the files in both instances. > > By running the test on a lightly loaded machine, you are also removing > the possibility of files being flushed from the cache in the > tmpdir-on-disk setup, so I would expect you to get comparable results > either way. > > The only real benefit of using tmpfs is the one you mentioned elsewhere, > that the disks don't get bothered at all. > >
I don't think that is correct. I am clearing the files in ram. That's the point of drop_caches is to clear the kernels cache files. See post to Nicolas Sebrecht a bit ago. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
