Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] tmpfs

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Ari Steinberg <ari.steinberg AT stanford.edu>
  • To: "Sergey A. Lipnevich" <sergeyli AT pisem.net>
  • Cc: "\"\\\"Sergey A. Lipnevich\\\"\"" <sergeyli AT pisem.net>, Phil/CERisE/KG6MBQ <cerise AT littlegreenmen.armory.com>, "\"\\\"\\\\\"\\\\\\\\\"Julian v. Bock\\\\\\\\\"\\\\\"\\\"\"" <julian AT openit.de>, Source Mage Discuss <sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] tmpfs
  • Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 23:59:01 -0400

At 10:03 PM 7/25/2002 +0400, Sergey A. Lipnevich wrote:
Ari, where exactly did you find any negative emotions
in my post?

Sergey - I didn't! I was completely agreeing with you - I too like tempfs and felt that the issue of tempfs should be dropped and I only mentioned the idea of a swap file as a suggestion to appease users who might be against the whole tempfs thing on the ground that it requires making a large swap partition.
Sorry that you misunderstood...I guess the phrase "werd" is not as universal as I assumed, but I meant it as a form of saying "I completely agree".
-Ari

Ari Steinberg <ari.steinberg AT stanford.edu>:
> Quoting "Sergey A. Lipnevich" <sergeyli AT pisem.net>:
> > I still think tempfs is a very elegant solution to many
> > problems (disk clean-up, /tmp using my otherwise unused
> > most of the time swap partition, performance still
> > there), but that's not the point. Why are we discussing
> > what to change when there's a whole slew of sorcery
> > functions to implement to be feature-complete for 1.0?
> >
> > --Sergey.
>
> Werd.
> The important thing is that tempfs works. For those
that are annoyed
> at the thought of having to create a large swap
partition, remember
> that you don't have to! You can create a temporary
swap file,
> instructions have been around for a long time now
(unfortunately I
> don't know them offhand, but I'd bet they're
somewhere in the wiki).
> Performance-wise, 99% of the time spent compiling
large programs is a
> part of the actual compilation process and has
nothing to do with the
> overhead in cast. If you are fed up with compile
times, maybe you
> should go back to a binary distro - it's an inherent
problem with using
> the source.
>
> -Ari





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page