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: "Sergey A. Lipnevich" <sergeyli AT pisem.net>
  • To: Phil/CERisE/KG6MBQ <cerise AT littlegreenmen.armory.com>
  • Cc: Source Mage Discuss <sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] tmpfs
  • Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 04:19:19 +0400 (MSD)

I did test both. Here's why I mentioned rebooting. When
you untar anything into filesystem, it stays in fs
cache unless you reboot (or the PC is short on memory,
or your fs is brain-dead). So, I looked at GKrellM and
observed that while compiling on reiserfs, the disk
hits were separated by almost equal periods of silence
of several seconds: ..|..|..|..|..|..|.. forgive me
this simplicity ;-) Then, compiling on tempfs produces
*much* less disk hits at irregular intervals, so this
can be labeled as regular PC activity (noise for this
experiment). So, I think GKrellM was showing me disk
writes of compiled object and executable files
(mostly). I don't have the numbers saved, but tempfs
lead was ~45 seconds on a 10 min-magnitude compile.
In the end, it may also depend on the order of
experiment, because /usr/include is cached during first
compilation, and is "already there" on the second.

All in all, you hit disk more when compiling on real
fs, and there's no reason for this. Also, I think
multi-threaded compilation on a multi-CPU machine would
advance tempfs even further.

Cheers to sysadmins :-)!

--Sergey.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page