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 C07D6138010 for ; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 11:16:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AFA0621C005; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 11:15:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-gg0-f181.google.com (mail-gg0-f181.google.com [209.85.161.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25AC4E035C for ; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 11:13:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ggmb6 with SMTP id b6so428771ggm.40 for ; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 04:13:59 -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=pa51HnKiDQV6EaqAVbY06l5yl+NwkW7RSLvIh7LE6cU=; b=PUXUZtt8M6FTUvDTzny+pJIbvnT0SWz+tm5CerMYmEfCmfR8HXTlsEh4PorS+L5aOJ A2e7hQAX6jjSs0DS1G1NGFpxLvW6snnTWr+02cmAznlJ/DWJNsazQLlMI9mAw5TF2YR2 D9MKI4a41F7wCzGE/XZZAlejm8OYWakUhcbrPSn7IfKgTTbZ7RMGr96/TZ5oRWFO5Slr qUyFatFwgnhqSGKvd/8YrNUCznY6Aags20gAddGng6TI22eKbkzgBOUrM2h5kyZuP7fW QWCQg3mJyOOMps1PCWk2PIbXbcPywjmDA4fN7KBblAmkxfRCQmEyyuSkxTTL0p313fGI ecXg== Received: by 10.236.144.197 with SMTP id n45mr11463449yhj.95.1347275639410; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 04:13:59 -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 o11sm6780610anp.4.2012.09.10.04.13.57 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 10 Sep 2012 04:13:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <504DCB74.8020408@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 06:13:56 -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] Re: aligning SSD partitions References: <20120906134646.GH2442@nicolas-desktop> <5048B120.2030905@gmail.com> <5048D2D7.1070000@gmail.com> <20120906212107.6d7dcc64@hactar.digimed.co.uk> <504910F8.5010205@gmail.com> <20120906233845.65eb840f@digimed.co.uk> <50492D07.6090004@gmail.com> <20120907074722.GA2419@nicolas-desktop> <5049EA16.3080002@gmail.com> <20120910103221.GA5984@nicolas-desktop> In-Reply-To: <20120910103221.GA5984@nicolas-desktop> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 4a2fa0c2-74e7-4a41-8b7c-e306a9d88cfc X-Archives-Hash: 28d3d241938e38ecf0a95c5558e06e02 Nicolas Sebrecht wrote: > The 07/09/12, Dale wrote: > >> The thing is tho, whether it is using the memory as cache or using it >> as >> tmpfs, it is the same memory. There is no difference. That's the >> whole >> point. > Feel free to take your own assumptions as undeniable truth. The way the > kernel work with memory is the key, of course. > > Now, as long as you blind yourself with statements like that, I'm not > going to respond anymore. I guess you need to make some basic research. > I understand how the kernel uses memory. That's why it doesn't matter if you put portage's work directory on tmpfs or not. I been using Linux for a pretty good long while now. I have a pretty good understanding of it, especially the things that I use. Respond or not, I know what I tested and what the results were. They were not just my tests and results either. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!