From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1QCXgJ-0008O5-6a for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 13:42:59 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 22E391C045; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 13:41:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtpq2.gn.mail.iss.as9143.net (smtpq2.gn.mail.iss.as9143.net [212.54.34.165]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4F281C041 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 13:41:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [212.54.34.134] (helo=smtp3.gn.mail.iss.as9143.net) by smtpq2.gn.mail.iss.as9143.net with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QCXeo-0005Rl-8I for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 15:41:26 +0200 Received: from 5ed02730.cm-7-1a.dynamic.ziggo.nl ([94.208.39.48] helo=data.antarean.org) by smtp3.gn.mail.iss.as9143.net with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QCXel-0005qu-PA for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 15:41:23 +0200 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by data.antarean.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA40026C3 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 15:42:14 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at antarean.org Received: from data.antarean.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (data.antarean.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l7NprCEZUW-L for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 15:42:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: from eve.localnet (eve.lan.antarean.org [10.20.13.50]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by data.antarean.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C3D31135 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 15:42:14 +0200 (CEST) From: Joost Roeleveld To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Howzat! Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 15:41:22 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/4.6 beta4 (Linux/2.6.36-gentoo-r5; KDE/4.6.2; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <201104201516.40996.alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> References: <201104180228.59487.peter@humphrey.ukfsn.org> <20110420123833.C496B30E9@data.antarean.org> <201104201516.40996.alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: <20110420134214.BA40026C3@data.antarean.org> X-ZiggoSMTP-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-ZiggoSMTP-MailScanner-ID: 1QCXel-0005qu-PA X-ZiggoSMTP-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-ZiggoSMTP-MailScanner-SpamCheck: geen spam, SpamAssassin (niet cached, score=-0.928, vereist 5, BAYES_00 -1.90, RDNS_DYNAMIC 0.98, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD -0.01) X-ZiggoSMTP-MailScanner-From: joost@antarean.org X-Spam-Status: No X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 79f02a79412fbbea60c6ee5620e20ae6 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