From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-user+bounces-141039-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
	by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEC9E138010
	for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Thu,  6 Sep 2012 11:13:34 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2B18721C034;
	Thu,  6 Sep 2012 11:13:15 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mercure.logifi.fr (mercure.logifi.fr [217.108.178.220])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88B7C21C01B
	for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu,  6 Sep 2012 11:11:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mercure.logifi.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC3FD44387
	for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu,  6 Sep 2012 13:11:37 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mercure.logifi.fr
Received: from mercure.logifi.fr ([127.0.0.1])
	by localhost (mercure.logifi.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 7hRNsQeKRbnn; Thu,  6 Sep 2012 13:11:37 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from nicolas-desktop (unknown [192.168.8.78])
	by mercure.logifi.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4912A44379;
	Thu,  6 Sep 2012 13:11:37 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 13:11:36 +0200
From: Nicolas Sebrecht <nsebrecht@piing.fr>
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Cc: Nicolas Sebrecht <nsebrecht@piing.fr>
Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: aligning SSD partitions
Message-ID: <20120906111136.GC2442@nicolas-desktop>
References: <50474B1D.8070306@gmail.com>
 <20120905161743.1f2ecd9d@hactar.digimed.co.uk>
 <CA+czFiB6xEVvthmhdtFNxrtwDEQa4XgTBMK9_qyVZXZi-Q+O1A@mail.gmail.com>
 <504791EB.2030103@gmail.com>
 <20120906065755.GA2442@nicolas-desktop>
 <504869AB.20908@gmail.com>
 <20120906104744.7f0972a7@hactar.digimed.co.uk>
 <504876B5.7050001@gmail.com>
 <20120906112003.7b1235bd@hactar.digimed.co.uk>
 <50487E9A.3060200@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <50487E9A.3060200@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
X-Archives-Salt: 08295bd1-1816-4552-9aa3-7cf70a7636ba
X-Archives-Hash: b6556d9cf34510e23ce761f308097c5e

The 06/09/12, Dale wrote:

>                                                       The point was
> whether having portages work directory on tmpfs resulted in speed
> increases.  If you have portages work directory on tmpfs, of course it
> uses ram.  That's what tmpfs is.  It's taking what might normally be put
> on the disk and putting it in ram because ram is faster.

Please, understand that whithout tmpfs and a lot of RAM, the kernel
_won't_ work with the files from the disk but with the files stored in
the _kernel cache_ which IS RAM, too.

This explains why you get this result:

>                                                           The point is,
> cache or not, having portages work directory on tmpfs doesn't result in
> speed improvements as one would expect.

Taking back your last sentence with precise sementic:

                                                          The point is,
/tmpfs cache (RAM)/ or /kernel cache (RAM)/, having portages work on tmpfs doesn't result in
speed improvements.


-- 
Nicolas Sebrecht