FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Gentoo > Gentoo User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 09-10-2012, 02:02 PM
Michael Mol
 
Default aligning SSD partitions

On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:






Michael Mol wrote:



On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 7:13 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com>
wrote:



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.





Nobody is disagreeing with your test results. In fact,
they're not even disagreeing with you that they mean what you
think they mean within the context you're testing. They're
disagreeing with your extrapolation of your results to other
contexts. In short, all other things being equal, your test
results work out for someone in the exact same circumstances
as yourself...but there are a _lot_ of other things that need
to be equal!



Filesystem mount options can have an impact. For example,
let's say your filesystem is configured to make writes
synchronous, for general data integrity purposes. That would
slow PORTAGE_TMP down something _fierce_.



Someone might be tweaking any number of the knobs under
'vm' in /proc. vm.swappiness, vm.dirty_* or vm.min_free_kbytes
are ones that caught my eye, but really most of them in there
look relevant.



Or consider that someone else might be running drop_caches,
or even sync() while your code is running. (Heck, if there's a
database, even an sqlite database, on the same filesystem,
that's almost a guarantee.)



These may seem to be obvious, but these are the kinds of
things people were trying to get you to be willing to
acknowledge before you made blanket assertions which covered
them.




--

:wq






Someone could be getting rays from Mars but I am not testing that.*
What I tested was this,* Run emerge with portages work directory on
disk.* Then run same command with portage's work directory on
tmpfs.* Then compare the results.* No other changes except for where
portage's work directory is located, hard drive or ram.* This was
done on a NORMAL system that most ANY user would be using.* I'm not
concerned with some rare or exotic setup, just a normal setup.* If
someone is running some exotic setup, then they need to test that to
see whether it helps or not because I did not test for that sort of
system.* I didn't test for rays from Mars either.* LOL



Running databases on the same filesystem as PORTAGE_TMP is not a rare or exotic setup. Anyone who doesn't use a separate /home or separate portage temp is in a circumstance like that.


--
:wq
 
Old 09-10-2012, 02:22 PM
Dale
 
Default aligning SSD partitions

Michael Mol wrote:



On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com>
wrote:





Michael Mol wrote:



On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 7:13
AM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com>
wrote:



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.





Nobody is disagreeing with your test results.
In fact, they're not even disagreeing with you
that they mean what you think they mean within the
context you're testing. They're disagreeing with
your extrapolation of your results to other
contexts. In short, all other things being equal,
your test results work out for someone in the
exact same circumstances as yourself...but there
are a _lot_ of other things that need to be equal!



Filesystem mount options can have an impact.
For example, let's say your filesystem is
configured to make writes synchronous, for general
data integrity purposes. That would slow
PORTAGE_TMP down something _fierce_.



Someone might be tweaking any number of the
knobs under 'vm' in /proc. vm.swappiness,
vm.dirty_* or vm.min_free_kbytes are ones that
caught my eye, but really most of them in there
look relevant.



Or consider that someone else might be running
drop_caches, or even sync() while your code is
running. (Heck, if there's a database, even an
sqlite database, on the same filesystem, that's
almost a guarantee.)



These may seem to be obvious, but these are the
kinds of things people were trying to get you to
be willing to acknowledge before you made blanket
assertions which covered them.




--

:wq








Someone could be getting rays from Mars but I am not testing
that.* What I tested was this,* Run emerge with portages
work directory on disk.* Then run same command with
portage's work directory on tmpfs.* Then compare the
results.* No other changes except for where portage's work
directory is located, hard drive or ram.* This was done on a
NORMAL system that most ANY user would be using.* I'm not
concerned with some rare or exotic setup, just a normal
setup.* If someone is running some exotic setup, then they
need to test that to see whether it helps or not because I
did not test for that sort of system.* I didn't test for
rays from Mars either.* LOL









Running databases on the same filesystem as PORTAGE_TMP is
not a rare or exotic setup. Anyone who doesn't use a separate
/home or separate portage temp is in a circumstance like that.







--

:wq






Well, I have /home on its own partition, like most likely everyone
does.* At the time, I was not using LVM either.* At the time, I had
a pretty much default install except that the portage tree was on
its own partition since I wanted to keep it from fragmenting all of
/usr with all those constantly changing little files.*



I also use defaults when mounting file systems too.* Nothing exotic
or weird or anything.*



So again, just testing on as normal a system as there could be to
get some real world results. *



Dale



:-)* :-)*

--
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:53 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org