Re: [gentoo-user] Re: /var/tmp on tmpfs

[gevisz <gevisz@gmail.com>]

2018-02-08 23:57 GMT+02:00 Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>:
> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 4:52 PM, gevisz <gevisz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> However, it probably won't be sooner than
>> # emerge --update --deep --with-bdeps=y --newuse --backtrack=90 --ask
>> world --exclude chromium
>> fails because of the "--exclude chromium" part :), as I have already compiled
>> the recent vertion of chromium with /var/tmp/portage on the hard disk and
>> it took more than 24 hours on my old AMD Athlon X2 with j2 option. :(
>>
>
> Honestly I doubt that tmpfs will make much difference since this is
> probably CPU-bound.

Thank you for your reply.

You probably will be surprised, but the main reason I am trying to use
tmpfs for /var/tmp/ is not because I want to make emerging chromium
faster (I have no hope about that because read somewhere that it will
make compilation only 10 percent faster) but because I have not too
much free space on / (sometimes in the past chromium refused to build
in the similar conditions) and because of that either have to move /var/tmp
to the separate partition anyway or try to use tmpfs + swap and, if it fails,
to move to the separate partition only /var/tmp/portage/notmpfs

> Using the jumbo-build option probably will help a lot more - but it
> will use even more RAM and might make a tmpfs impractical for you.  I
> bet that jumbo-build on a spinning disk will be faster for you than
> not using that option on a tmpfs.  But, there is only one way to be
> sure.