On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckin...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wednesday 27 July 2011 15:40:03 Neil Bothwick did opine thusly: >> On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:41:33 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote: >> > Doesn't do that here. When tmpfs is full it starts being swapped >> > out to the swap partition. Perhaps you didn't have any swap at >> > the time. >> >> The default size for a tmpfs filesystem is half the physical RAM, >> unless you specify more as a mount option, it will never use >> significant amounts of swap. >> >> I wonder how effective tmpfs is for PORTAGE_TMPDIR as the builds >> that need a lot of disk space can often require a fair bit of >> memory too, and tmpfs is using it all. > > In this last week someone reported doing actually measurements and > found that using a tmpfs was actually slower.
Hm. I wonder why that is; it seems counterintuitive to my understanding of how tmpfs is implemented wrt the kernel's caching. But I haven't red up on that in years. -- :wq
