Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Concerns about WIPE_TMP change [offtopic]
On Mon, 2008-01-21 at 20:34 -0500, Caleb Cushing wrote: > On Jan 20, 2008 8:43 AM, Richard Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stefan de Konink wrote: > > ..very offtopic but how are you all compiling stuff like > firefox on a > > ram disk. Or is 8GB of ram very cheap suddenly? > > not to mention, last time I checked open office only required ~2GB of > space to compile and it takes more than firefox. Most apps can be done > in less than 512MB The largest abuser of space in the tree that I am aware of is games-fps/ut2004-data which weighs in at nearly 7GB to install. I'm pretty sure that games-strategy/nwn-data is pretty close with USE="hou sou" enabled. ;] -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Games Developer signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Concerns about WIPE_TMP change [offtopic]
080121 Caleb Cushing wrote: > last time I checked open office only required ~2GB to compile OO 2.3.1 needed 3,25 GB here, which was less than in the past IIRC. You're correct that that is far more than any other pkg needs. -- ,, SUPPORT ___//___, Philip Webb : [EMAIL PROTECTED] ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Centre for Urban & Community Studies TRANSIT`-O--O---' University of Toronto -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Concerns about WIPE_TMP change [offtopic]
On Jan 20, 2008 8:43 AM, Richard Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stefan de Konink wrote: > > ..very offtopic but how are you all compiling stuff like firefox on a > > ram disk. Or is 8GB of ram very cheap suddenly? > not to mention, last time I checked open office only required ~2GB of space to compile and it takes more than firefox. Most apps can be done in less than 512MB -- Caleb Cushing I currently only check my email once or twice a week, due to lack of internet in home. I apologize for the inconvenience
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Concerns about WIPE_TMP change [offtopic]
Stefan de Konink wrote: ..very offtopic but how are you all compiling stuff like firefox on a ram disk. Or is 8GB of ram very cheap suddenly? Swap is your friend. The performance hit is the same as what you'd get compiling on disk if pages need to be swapped out. The performance is of course far superior for any pages that don't need to be swapped out. The big clean at the end is of course MUCH faster in a ram-disk. The beauty of tmpfs is that it performs no worse than disk in the worst case, and in the case of short-lived files it performs far better. If you write, use, and delete a file on disk (more than a few seconds apart) the kernel actually takes care to sync everything as if you cared about the file 10 minutes into the future. The kernel can also be far more opportunistic with how it swaps pages compared to how it flushes buffers - since there is a general understanding that when you write to a file you care about being able to read it back in a few days. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Concerns about WIPE_TMP change [offtopic]
Stefan de Konink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sun, 20 Jan 2008 00:17:55 +0100: > ...very offtopic but how are you all compiling stuff like firefox on a > ram disk. Or is 8GB of ram very cheap suddenly? Well, tmpfs is swap-backed if necessary. That's one of its strengths. And no, 8 gig of at least registered memory (what my Opterons use) isn't cheap -- I paid >$1000 for mine a year or so ago, but it sure is nice, combined with a dual dual-core system (Opteron 290s, upgraded ~4 months ago from 242s). MAKEOPTS="-j20 -l12" keeps things from getting too out of hand. It'll sometimes use 3 gigs or so of app memory (and about the same tmpfs it appears), but not too bad. I ran -j (unlimited jobs) for awhile, and it's fun to see the jobs climb to several hundred, but even with 16 gigs 4-way striped swap, the system goes draggy at that and >10 gigs into swap. Keeping it to ~12 jobs means responsiveness stays reasonable, at least with the new 2.6.24 user based scheduling and the portage user kept to the same or half the share of my regular user. Swap seldom gets used, and if it does, it's only a few megs of the apps I don't use much anyway (/proc/sys/vm/swappiness set to 100 so it flushes apps, not cache, to swap, as apps and the main system are on raid-6 so only two-way striped while swap is 4-way striped). Nice system to run Gentoo on. =8^) Using ccache, recompiling the updated kde4-svn daily is only ~2 hours or so, during which the system remains pleasantly usable. =8^) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Concerns about WIPE_TMP change [offtopic]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Alec Warner schreef: >> But who compiles firefox? :) Probably everyone that noticed that the segmentation faults coming from the precompiled versions are annoying? Stefan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHkpfdYH1+F2Rqwn0RCjLoAJ9dA6BN/2011ed1IFZ9aabPqoRtFQCeJAsF w8Pf3sgIwIyDQwQNY/O6t10= =PqIa -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Concerns about WIPE_TMP change [offtopic]
On 1/19/08, Stefan de Konink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA512 > > Duncan schreef: > > Richard Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], > > excerpted below, on Sat, 19 Jan 2008 07:55:53 -0500: > > > > Obscure? It's the directory name (says another with both /tmp and /var/ > > tmp on tmpfs). > > ...very offtopic but how are you all compiling stuff like firefox on a > ram disk. Or is 8GB of ram very cheap suddenly? 8gb is very cheap. But who compiles firefox? :) > > > Stefan > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFHkoUjYH1+F2Rqwn0RCiGcAKCFWHbUfmXHA6OJ47owQ23ACpfMFwCfVqFf > tQ5D4kN+U2Oxs8WjaCl8FP0= > =5UKn > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > -- > gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list > > -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Concerns about WIPE_TMP change [offtopic]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Duncan schreef: > Richard Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], > excerpted below, on Sat, 19 Jan 2008 07:55:53 -0500: > > Obscure? It's the directory name (says another with both /tmp and /var/ > tmp on tmpfs). ...very offtopic but how are you all compiling stuff like firefox on a ram disk. Or is 8GB of ram very cheap suddenly? Stefan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHkoUjYH1+F2Rqwn0RCiGcAKCFWHbUfmXHA6OJ47owQ23ACpfMFwCfVqFf tQ5D4kN+U2Oxs8WjaCl8FP0= =5UKn -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
