From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 91418139083 for ; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 10:46:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B4E4EE0FD1; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 10:46:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from auth-3.ukservers.net (auth-3.ukservers.net [217.10.138.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 475DCE0F56 for ; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 10:46:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.64] (host81-154-201-55.range81-154.btcentralplus.com [81.154.201.55]) by auth-3.ukservers.net (Postfix smtp) with ESMTPA id 2F0B8541304 for ; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 10:46:44 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] is multi-core really worth it? To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org References: <6b5fbeca-453c-f103-5e4e-a8db83a6dabf@st.com> <6661527.9k004Oio64@eve> <1768467.U8M6HPhz0d@peak> From: Wols Lists Message-ID: <5A267913.5030902@youngman.org.uk> Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 10:46:43 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.0 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 In-Reply-To: <1768467.U8M6HPhz0d@peak> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 4f555742-dc58-44c0-bb22-1f25dc7ca66b X-Archives-Hash: 0bc9684c25fc79569b2930b9dfaa0bc5 On 05/12/17 10:09, Peter Humphrey wrote: >> I assume using a ramdisk would help with this? I wouldn't want to do a >> > SSD as I assume it would excessively wear by doing compiles. > I use tmpfs, like this: > > $ grep tmpfs /etc/fstab > tmpfs /var/tmp/portage tmpfs noatime,uid=portage,gid=portage,mode=0775 0 0 > tmpfs /tmp tmpfs noatime,nosuid,nodev,noexec,mode=1777 0 0 > > If a tmpfs fills up, the excess gets swapped out, but with 32GB RAM here I > haven't yet seen any swap used at all - not even in an emerge -e world. Same here. Note that tmpfs defaults to half ram, so that would give you a 16GB /var/tmp/portage. With 16GB ram here, that would probably cause things like emerging libreoffice or firefox or gcc to abort. My fstab has these lines ... note the SIZE option ... # glibc 2.2 and above expects tmpfs to be mounted at /dev/shm for # POSIX shared memory (shm_open, shm_unlink). # (tmpfs is a dynamically expandable/shrinkable ramdisk, and will # use almost no memory if not populated with files) shm /dev/shm tmpfs nodev,nosuid,noexec 0 0 portage /var/tmp/portage tmpfs size=30G,mode=0777 0 0 tmp /tmp tmpfs size=10G,mode=0777 0 0 My swap partitions are twice max ram, so I currently have two 32GB partitions giving me 80GB total ram and swap. (My new system when I get it working maxes out at 64GB ram so I'll have 256GB swap and (currently) 16GB ram) Cheers, Wol