Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] Smallest Source Mage

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Phil/CERisE/KG6MBQ <cerise AT littlegreenmen.armory.com>
  • To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] Smallest Source Mage
  • Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 19:03:20 -0700 (PDT)

Andrew Stitt said:

> Now you want it to be the default option. Whats it going to be next?
> [ snippage ]
> You need to realize that sometimes there are two valid points of view
> on some things, sure if you are strongly for one side the other seems
> stupid, wrong, crazy even, but oh well, you arent going to win them
> all.

I'm looking for the other 'valid' point of view here. I've asked
several times about what makes tmpfs a reasonable option.
I've heard two things. Fragmentation and ease of removal.
Fragmentation hasn't had any valid factors lent to it.
As for ease of removal, I mentioned a couple of different ways that
it could be done as trivially as tmpfs in a previous post. Not to
mention that cleaning up can be done trivially as an rm -rf in the
background.
I'm all for seeing both sides of the issue. That's why I'm asking
people to present benchmarks and other assorted data to prove their
points.
Thus far, that hasn't happened. Usually that's symptomatic of one
side being right and the other one not. If my willingness to call a
spade, a spade bothers you, then I'd suggest making a case.
I still don't see why tmpfs is a reasonable option to anyone.
Hence the comment about "Gee, why don't we add an option that slows
compilation 5%".
I'm open to suggestions other than "Because people have a religious
fascination with it..." If there is a reason (e.g. there is some
benefit to offset the ~5% time difference and the increase in memory),
then I'll gladly drop the topic.

-Phil/CERisE





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page