[SM-Discuss] License Choices
warl0k at lvcm.com
Sun Jul 21 18:40:13 EDT 2002
I believe the choice to use tmpfs was because compiling in memory is
Unfortunately for those of us who have fast enough machines, the benefit
of tmpfs is minimal. For those that don't actually have 1G of RAM to
toss around like a ragdoll on May Day, it slows things down as it has to
swap stuff out to disk which is less efficient than using the disk as a
medium for compilation.
For the 4 or 5 people in the world who are on the right machines for
tmpfs compiling (medium range machines with 768+M of RAM) tmpfs gives
them a .05% increase in speed in return for its hefty requirement.
Please note that these views are my own, and do not express the views of
any of my other teammates. Thank you.
From: sm-discuss-admin at lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:sm-discuss-admin at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of
Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2002 3:30 PM
To: sm-discuss at lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] License Choices
> Dufflebunk <dufflebunk at dufflebunk.homeip.net>:
> > Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
> Yeah, what he just said ;-).
For the record that translates to "Whatever is said in Latin, sounds
profound.". "No dice latina." is another important phrase for me.
I have one aching, giant bug in Sorcery which has been annoying the
hell out of me. That's the tendency for the tarball'd version to run
on a different distribution and demand an "on" spell.
But I'll leave that aside for the moment, because there is (IMHO) a
giant design flaw in Sorcery.
The requirement of large amounts of memory in order to support the
mounting of tmpfs's sucks.
I believe it can be done equally as fast, if not faster, employing
chroot and a temporary directory.
Large amounts of memory usually isn't a concern of many programmers
today. Mostly because machines have larger amounts of memory at their
disposal. However, in this case, it's important to remember what linux
was all about. A fast, 32-bit operating system on a non-32-bit chip.
While you *can* run sorcery on a machine with a smaller amount of RAM,
it's silly to do so. It usually implies the requirement of a rather
large swap partition.
Is there any work being done to this effect?
SM-Discuss mailing list
SM-Discuss at lists.ibiblio.org
More information about the SM-Discuss