Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 09:07:30 -0500, Dale wrote: > >> I don't care if emerge uses cache >> DURING the emerge process because it is always enabled in both tests. >> The point is whether portage's work directory is on tmpfs or not makes >> emerges faster. > It does not, if you have enough RAM, precisely because of the part you > claim not to care about. > >> The thing about what you are saying is that I ran those tests with the >> files in memory. What I am saying is this, that is not the case. > No, that is not what I am saying. Those files were loaded into memory > when you ran the test AFTER you cleared the previously cached files. The > number of times you run the test is irrelevant, as is whether you start > with an empty cache or not. All that matters is that the kernel caching > all the files used during the emerge makes the storage medium used > irrelevant. > > Like I said, take a step back, a deep breath and a break of an hour or > two. Then read the posts again without your preconceptions of what you > think we are trying to say (which is not what we are actually saying). > Only when you have done that can this discussion proceed beyond the > current tit-for-tat exchanges of misunderstanding. > >
But to use that or tmpfs, you first have to have the ram. The exact same rig reports that putting portages work directory on tmpfs does NOT result in faster emerge times. Period. I DO NOT care why that is, I just know from testing that it does NOT make emerge work any faster. The only reason to use tmpfs for portage's work directory is to save wear and tear on a drive. There is no difference in emerge times otherwise. Others ran their own tests and got the same results. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
