On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Dale <rdalek1...@gmail.com> wrote: > Michael Mol wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 7:13 AM, Dale <rdalek1...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Nicolas Sebrecht wrote: >> > The 07/09/12, Dale wrote: >> > >> >> The thing is tho, whether it is using the memory as cache or using it >> >> as >> >> tmpfs, it is the same memory. There is no difference. That's the >> >> whole >> >> point. >> > Feel free to take your own assumptions as undeniable truth. The way the >> > kernel work with memory is the key, of course. >> > >> > Now, as long as you blind yourself with statements like that, I'm not >> > going to respond anymore. I guess you need to make some basic research. >> > >> >> I understand how the kernel uses memory. That's why it doesn't matter >> if you put portage's work directory on tmpfs or not. I been using Linux >> for a pretty good long while now. I have a pretty good understanding of >> it, especially the things that I use. >> >> Respond or not, I know what I tested and what the results were. They >> were not just my tests and results either. >> > > Nobody is disagreeing with your test results. In fact, they're not even > disagreeing with you that they mean what you think they mean within the > context you're testing. They're disagreeing with your extrapolation of your > results to other contexts. In short, all other things being equal, your > test results work out for someone in the exact same circumstances as > yourself...but there are a _lot_ of other things that need to be equal! > > Filesystem mount options can have an impact. For example, let's say your > filesystem is configured to make writes synchronous, for general data > integrity purposes. That would slow PORTAGE_TMP down something _fierce_. > > Someone might be tweaking any number of the knobs under 'vm' in /proc. > vm.swappiness, vm.dirty_* or vm.min_free_kbytes are ones that caught my > eye, but really most of them in there look relevant. > > Or consider that someone else might be running drop_caches, or even > sync() while your code is running. (Heck, if there's a database, even an > sqlite database, on the same filesystem, that's almost a guarantee.) > > These may seem to be obvious, but these are the kinds of things people > were trying to get you to be willing to acknowledge before you made blanket > assertions which covered them. > > -- > :wq > > > > Someone could be getting rays from Mars but I am not testing that. What I > tested was this, Run emerge with portages work directory on disk. Then > run same command with portage's work directory on tmpfs. Then compare the > results. No other changes except for where portage's work directory is > located, hard drive or ram. This was done on a NORMAL system that most ANY > user would be using. I'm not concerned with some rare or exotic setup, > just a normal setup. If someone is running some exotic setup, then they > need to test that to see whether it helps or not because I did not test for > that sort of system. I didn't test for rays from Mars either. LOL > > Running databases on the same filesystem as PORTAGE_TMP is not a rare or exotic setup. Anyone who doesn't use a separate /home or separate portage temp is in a circumstance like that.
-- :wq
