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 9D3FD138010 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 12:54:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DDAE521C027; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 12:54:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-yx0-f181.google.com (mail-yx0-f181.google.com [209.85.213.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B797E0605 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 12:52:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: by yenq6 with SMTP id q6so75336yen.40 for ; Wed, 05 Sep 2012 05:52:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=NGIAHcT+IKDFV7LBY9fjuFrO0y2lQgpplnKqVjsCE4k=; b=TQtbpEmDs2w6tXQGbSf/kYBioL9Fhh6mYYcQoJ8PmtAXu5DnGycrr+K89kGYAMpYQH RDo+QZoSU2eXBHqs6gy5tWRVmdU2LtLdLDgl2P+Cx1BqmrYuh71kk0VYp4Kjd2BJxPcx gWpRniuKf6ZhpYzrx3brxr4MwGNzvoqHKKl+kkjuo+m3jUJuc65tXT5sTIycJe11I++V L4seW6O+FzdrO4FxFqRkOE3yqE+aIcwWC7QdbW6xLnTubb+f8ZakJwdw+Fk07vZGBgzC L/aDzA/ugB83Dx8oprrWbmRp6l0V6L/iAwTWNkp5N3H8yEQXPPKS3p/kCLmuJiDjbAq9 ReRg== Received: by 10.236.185.201 with SMTP id u49mr22524021yhm.28.1346849571021; Wed, 05 Sep 2012 05:52:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.5] (adsl-65-0-93-201.jan.bellsouth.net. [65.0.93.201]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l25sm2896283yhk.8.2012.09.05.05.52.48 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 05 Sep 2012 05:52:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <50474B1D.8070306@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 07:52:45 -0500 From: Dale User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120902 Firefox/15.0 SeaMonkey/2.12 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 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] aligning SSD partitions References: <20120904072003.GD3095@ca.inter.net> <20120905092358.7bd9915f@hactar.digimed.co.uk> <20120905090249.GB3097@ca.inter.net> <201209051023.52973.peter@humphrey.ukfsn.org> <50473261.9040704@gmail.com> <20120905133146.2ad0ffa1@hactar.digimed.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20120905133146.2ad0ffa1@hactar.digimed.co.uk> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 67d542f4-0c46-42b9-952a-035cfe4b2dae X-Archives-Hash: 24d683c3dc91a38adf22996788182f73 Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 06:07:13 -0500, Dale wrote: > >> I might also add, I see no speed improvements in putting portages work >> directory on tmpfs. I have tested this a few times and the difference >> in compile times is just not there. > Probably because with 16GB everything stays cached anyway. > > I cleared the cache between the compiles. This is the command I use: echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches That clears all cache from what I read and it also shows up as cleared in top too. It's amazing how much cache can build up over time. Right now, just about all my ram, 16Gbs worth, is used. I check it with gkrellm. It seems no matter how much ram you have, it will use it for something. Still, no difference. There is also a thread on the forums on this too. I think I posted my results on there but it was a while back. I think I ran that while in single user mode too. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!