From: Joost Roeleveld <joost@antarean.org>
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Howzat!
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 15:41:22 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110420134214.BA40026C3@data.antarean.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201104201516.40996.alan.mckinnon@gmail.com>
On Wednesday 20 April 2011 15:16:40 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Apparently, though unproven, at 14:37 on Wednesday 20 April 2011, Joost
>
> Roeleveld did opine thusly:
> > On Wednesday 20 April 2011 11:25:27 Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 20 April 2011 03:42:13 Dale wrote:
> > > > Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday 19 April 2011 17:54:02 Dale wrote:
> > > > >> Kfir Lavi wrote:
> > > > >>> I do a lot of compiling on my laptop using Catalyst for
> > > > >>> embedded.
> > > > >>> I upgraded my RAM to 8GB (2x4GB = 90$ ebay).
> > > > >>> I mount /var/tmp as tmpfs.
> > > > >>> Thats how I keep my SSD ;)
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Kfir
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> --
> > > > >>> Poison [BLX]
> > > > >>> Joshua M. Murphy
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I got 16Gbs in my rig and I mounted portages work
> > > > >> directory on
> > > > >> tmpfs,
> > > > >> it
> > > > >> was actually slower. That is likely a good idea to keep
> > > > >> from
> > > > >> wearing
> > > > >> out the SSD but it doesn't seem to make anything compile
> > > > >> faster.
> > > > >
> > > > > Strange, it actually got faster on mine when doing that.
> > > > > Did you mount with "noatime"? :)
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Joost
> > > >
> > > > Yep. It actually took a few seconds longer compiling in memory.
> > > > I
> > > > thought that was weird to tho. It doesn't make much sense to
> > > > me.
> > > >
> > > > Dale
> > > >
> > > > :-) :-)
> > >
> > > Hmm...
> > > Will be doing some timing-tests then....
> > > Openoffice is a good one for that ;)
> >
> > Ok, just done the tests. using tmpfs for /var/tmp/portage is quicker,
> > but
> > not by much.
> >
> > Without TMPFS:
> > # time emerge -v openoffice
> > real 32m44.742s
> > user 20m18.320s
> > sys 5m38.000s
> >
> > With TMPFS:
> > # mount -onoatime,size=7G -ttmpfs none /var/tmp/portage
> > # time emerge -v openoffice
> > real 31m30.835s
> > user 20m3.510s
> > sys 5m38.030s
> >
> > Specification of this machine:
> > 12GB RAM
> > Quad Core Xeon W3565 @ 3.2Ghz with HT enabled
> >
> > There are 2 drives in stripe-mode (software RAID-0) which does speed up
> > the I/O a lot.
>
> I'd say the entirety of /var/tmp/portage for your OOo build fits into your
> ram disk cache so very little actual disk IO is happening.
>
> I also noticed before switching to libreoffice-bin that the ooo build was
> largely cpu-bound anyway (disk light flashed seldom)
Alan,
I would love to do a better test then this.
Reason I took Openoffice is because it's known to be a large build (requires a
lot of diskspace) and takes a long time.
If you know which other ebuilds might make for a better test, I will be happy
to redo the test with those.
--
Joost
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-04-20 13:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 52+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-04-18 1:28 [gentoo-user] Howzat! Peter Humphrey
2011-04-18 1:44 ` Dale
2011-04-18 4:53 ` Joshua Murphy
2011-04-18 7:52 ` Florian Philipp
2011-04-18 8:12 ` Neil Bothwick
2011-04-18 9:32 ` Florian Philipp
2011-04-19 22:40 ` Kfir Lavi
2011-04-19 22:54 ` Dale
2011-04-20 7:33 ` Joost Roeleveld
2011-04-20 8:42 ` Dale
2011-04-20 9:25 ` Joost Roeleveld
2011-04-20 9:49 ` Pandu Poluan
2011-04-20 10:24 ` Joost Roeleveld
2011-04-21 5:41 ` Pandu Poluan
2011-04-21 15:49 ` Paul Hartman
2011-04-20 12:37 ` Joost Roeleveld
2011-04-20 13:16 ` Alan McKinnon
2011-04-20 13:41 ` Joost Roeleveld [this message]
2011-04-20 20:06 ` Alan McKinnon
2011-04-20 21:38 ` Mick
2011-04-18 11:22 ` Peter Humphrey
2011-04-18 12:44 ` Neil Bothwick
2011-04-18 14:35 ` Peter Humphrey
2011-04-18 14:51 ` Florian Philipp
2011-04-18 15:48 ` Peter Humphrey
2011-04-18 15:59 ` Peter Humphrey
2011-04-18 21:56 ` Neil Bothwick
2011-04-19 5:34 ` Thanasis
2011-04-19 6:57 ` Joost Roeleveld
2011-04-19 8:04 ` Neil Bothwick
2011-04-19 12:07 ` Thanasis
2011-04-20 13:33 ` Neil Bothwick
2011-04-20 21:23 ` Thanasis
2011-04-20 22:01 ` Neil Bothwick
2011-04-21 7:44 ` Thanasis
2011-04-21 8:03 ` Neil Bothwick
2011-04-21 8:15 ` Thanasis
2011-04-21 10:57 ` Thanasis
2011-04-21 13:26 ` Neil Bothwick
2011-04-21 14:45 ` Thanasis
2011-04-21 22:09 ` Neil Bothwick
2011-04-22 5:05 ` Thanasis
2011-04-22 7:14 ` Neil Bothwick
2011-04-22 8:12 ` Thanasis
2011-04-22 13:00 ` Neil Bothwick
2011-04-22 15:26 ` Thanasis
2011-04-22 18:46 ` Neil Bothwick
2011-04-21 13:41 ` Mark Knecht
2011-04-21 22:42 ` Neil Bothwick
2011-04-22 0:38 ` Mark Knecht
2011-04-19 12:40 ` Joost Roeleveld
2011-04-20 10:40 ` Thanasis
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20110420134214.BA40026C3@data.antarean.org \
--to=joost@antarean.org \
--cc=gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox