From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-user+bounces-181129-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
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 77E0F139083
	for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Wed,  6 Dec 2017 13:29:40 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C6006E0F9C;
	Wed,  6 Dec 2017 13:29:34 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from auth-4.ukservers.net (auth-4.ukservers.net [217.10.138.158])
	(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 5A941E0F4E
	for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed,  6 Dec 2017 13:29:34 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.1.64] (host86-176-79-41.range86-176.btcentralplus.com [86.176.79.41])
	by auth-4.ukservers.net (Postfix smtp) with ESMTPA id A3C8F1521112
	for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed,  6 Dec 2017 13:29:32 +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> <f50301da-6138-ae94-5d45-658f09faf9cd@gmx.com>
 <1768467.U8M6HPhz0d@peak> <20171205215627.6fec87e3@digimed.co.uk>
From: Wols Lists <antlists@youngman.org.uk>
Message-ID: <5A27F0BC.6000802@youngman.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 13:29:32 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.7.0
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
In-Reply-To: <20171205215627.6fec87e3@digimed.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Archives-Salt: d96b38ac-9eed-469c-9133-64875ce121f8
X-Archives-Hash: 6e7a53c7a24de72b99430a39589761c2

On 05/12/17 21:56, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Dec 2017 10:09:56 +0000, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> 
>> $ 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
> 
> Or you could set PORTAGE_TMPDIR to /tmp to save the second mount.
> 
Dunno why portage puts this stuff in /var/tmp, rather than /tmp, but do
be aware of what the standard says ...

Stuff in /tmp should be cleared at shutdown/boot.

Stuff in /var/tmp should survive a shutdown/boot.

Of course, if, like me you've put /var/tmp/portage as tmpfs, then of
course it won't survive a reboot, contrary to spec ... :-)

Cheers,
Wol