2018-02-08 23:57 GMT+02:00 Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org>: > On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 4:52 PM, gevisz <gev...@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.
