On Mon, 21 Nov 2016 03:57:02 -0500,
Neil Bothwick wrote:
>
> [1 ]
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2016 08:47:13 +, Peter Humphrey wrote:
>
> > > On my i7 machine with 16g of ram, webkit-gtk has got to take 4/5 hours
> > > to compile. This is using an ssd.
> >
> > That vindicates my choice of an NVMe SS
On Mon, 21 Nov 2016 08:47:13 +, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > On my i7 machine with 16g of ram, webkit-gtk has got to take 4/5 hours
> > to compile. This is using an ssd.
>
> That vindicates my choice of an NVMe SSD for this box, which is also an
> i7 but with 32GB. Genlop shows it takes betwe
On Sunday 20 Nov 2016 09:48:07 John Covici wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 09:25:58 -0500,
>
> Harry Putnam wrote:
> > Rich Freeman writes:
> > > IMO over-committing CPU isn't actually THAT bad. The CPU obviously
> > > gets divided n ways, but that's as far as it goes. There isn't that
> > > much
On Sunday, November 20, 2016 09:06:26 AM Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Harry Putnam wrote:
> > "J. Roeleveld" writes:
> >> Also, overcommitting CPUs has a bad influence on performance,
> >> especially if the host wants to use all cores as well.
> >
> > That is what I ask
On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Alec Ten Harmsel
wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 10:32:25AM -0500, Harry Putnam wrote:
>> Rich Freeman writes:
>>
>> > Are you building in a tmpfs? That would perform better than an ssd
>> > and would be much less wear on your flash besides. Of course, some
>>
On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 10:32:25AM -0500, Harry Putnam wrote:
> Rich Freeman writes:
>
> > Are you building in a tmpfs? That would perform better than an ssd
> > and would be much less wear on your flash besides. Of course, some
> > packages do take a while to build. I don't notice as much now
Rich Freeman writes:
> Are you building in a tmpfs? That would perform better than an ssd
> and would be much less wear on your flash besides. Of course, some
> packages do take a while to build. I don't notice as much now that I
> do most of my building from cron, but it can be painful when y
On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 9:48 AM, John Covici wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 09:25:58 -0500,
> Harry Putnam wrote:
>>
>> Rich Freeman writes:
>>
>> > IMO over-committing CPU isn't actually THAT bad. The CPU obviously
>> > gets divided n ways, but that's as far as it goes. There isn't that
>> > muc
On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 09:25:58 -0500,
Harry Putnam wrote:
>
> Rich Freeman writes:
>
> > IMO over-committing CPU isn't actually THAT bad. The CPU obviously
> > gets divided n ways, but that's as far as it goes. There isn't that
> > much overhead switching between VMs (though there certainly is s
Rich Freeman writes:
> IMO over-committing CPU isn't actually THAT bad. The CPU obviously
> gets divided n ways, but that's as far as it goes. There isn't that
> much overhead switching between VMs (though there certainly is some).
[...]
Thanks for the fuller picture and putting in the time t
On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Harry Putnam wrote:
> "J. Roeleveld" writes:
>
>> Also, overcommitting CPUs has a bad influence on performance,
>> especially if the host wants to use all cores as well.
>
> That is what I asked advice about. What do you call
> `overcommitting'. For example with
"J. Roeleveld" writes:
> On November 20, 2016 6:21:40 AM GMT+01:00, Alan McKinnon
> wrote:
>>On 20/11/2016 02:59, Harry Putnam wrote:
>>> An emerge of webkitgtk-2.14.2 has been running for over 2hrs. I
>>> wonder if I am starving my vbox vm of gentoo with 3GB or ram.
>>>
>>> Top's cpu usage i
Alan McKinnon writes:
> On 20/11/2016 02:59, Harry Putnam wrote:
>> An emerge of webkitgtk-2.14.2 has been running for over 2hrs. I
>> wonder if I am starving my vbox vm of gentoo with 3GB or ram.
>>
>> Top's cpu usage is fluxuating between 45% and 99% during this compile
>>
>> Portage pulling
13 matches
Mail list logo