From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30E11138010 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 07:58:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 87B22E062D; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 07:58:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mercure.logifi.fr (mercure.logifi.fr [217.108.178.220]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC7DDE0654 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 07:56:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercure.logifi.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A2D5443AC for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 09:56:19 +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 Xahi8XTICETk; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 09:56:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from nicolas-desktop (unknown [192.168.8.78]) by mercure.logifi.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C058144375; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 09:56:18 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 09:56:17 +0200 From: Nicolas Sebrecht To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Cc: Nicolas Sebrecht Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: aligning SSD partitions Message-ID: <20120907075617.GB2419@nicolas-desktop> References: <20120906112003.7b1235bd@hactar.digimed.co.uk> <50487E9A.3060200@gmail.com> <20120906111136.GC2442@nicolas-desktop> <5048898C.7070301@gmail.com> <20120906131754.6d9fbcb1@digimed.co.uk> <50489BBB.5090702@gmail.com> <20120906140420.26a3e3c5@digimed.co.uk> <5048AE22.3020802@gmail.com> <5048CEEC.5070800@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-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5048CEEC.5070800@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Archives-Salt: cc8a0c12-db16-4bd1-81e1-e0fa0a65d420 X-Archives-Hash: 233f03de31e23b3682d5fecba016620e The 06/09/12, Dale wrote: > But this is what you guys are missing too. If you want to use tmpfs, > you have to have enough ram to begin with. Whether you use tmpfs or > not, you have to have enough ram to do the compile otherwise you start > using swap or it just crashes. Having ram is a prerequisite to using > tmpfs. This is too minimal overview to get the point. Memory is not a static place. This is not a cake beeing shared once. Memory is living. See my other mail. > There is another flaw in your assumption above. I already had the > tarballs downloaded BEFORE even the first emerge. This is not a flaw in assumption. This is negligible. > What the people wanted to test is if putting portages work directory on > tmpfs would make emerge times faster. Come'on. We all understood your goal from the beginning. > Do we all admit that having portage on tmpfs does not make emerge times > faster yet? No. It depends on factors and underlying processes you claim they don't matter, which is wrong. They *might* be not relevant in some cases. -- Nicolas Sebrecht