On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Neil Bothwick <n...@digimed.co.uk> wrote: > On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 10:58:28 -0500, Dale wrote: > >> >>> 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. >> >> >> > Yes, but that was Dale and nothing works as it should for him :-O > >> That one did. Someone on the forums posted the same results. It >> doesn't make sense but . . . . > > It makes sense because the ramdisk is using memory that would otherwise > be used for compilation and filesystem caches.
tmpfs isn't implemented as a ramdisk, it's implemented as a thin layer on top of the filesystem cache. -- :wq
