On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 02:13:04PM +0100, pat wrote
> On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 14:00:22 +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote
> >
> > Please post contents of /etc/conf.d/net
> >
> > --
> > Neil Bothwick
> >
> > Top Oxymorons Number 5: Twelve-ounce pound cake
>
> Here it is.
config_eth0="192.168.74.101 netmask
Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 16:09:12 -0500, Dale wrote:
>
>>> Reading the tarball has nothing to do with this, we are discussing
>>> filesystems for PORTAGE_TMPDIR, not DISTDIR. It's where the source is
>>> unpacked, the object files compiled to, the executables linked to and
>>> the
On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 16:09:12 -0500, Dale wrote:
> > Reading the tarball has nothing to do with this, we are discussing
> > filesystems for PORTAGE_TMPDIR, not DISTDIR. It's where the source is
> > unpacked, the object files compiled to, the executables linked to and
> > the install image created t
Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 11:44:07 -0500, Dale wrote:
>
>> I kind of get what they are saying but at the same time using tmpfs
>> doesn't matter. Once the tarball is read off the drive, it doesn't
>> matter whether portage is run on a tmpfs or not.
> Reading the tarball has nothin
On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 11:32:41 -0500, Dale wrote:
> Others ran their own tests and got the same results.
No one is denying the results, only the reasons given for them.
--
Neil Bothwick
If you can't be kind, be vague.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 11:44:07 -0500, Dale wrote:
> I kind of get what they are saying but at the same time using tmpfs
> doesn't matter. Once the tarball is read off the drive, it doesn't
> matter whether portage is run on a tmpfs or not.
Reading the tarball has nothing to do with this, we are di
Nicolas Sebrecht wrote:
> The 06/09/12, Dale wrote:
>
>> Then take a look at it this way. If I emerge seamonkey with portage's
>> work directory on disk and it takes 12 minutes, the first time. Then I
>> clear the caches and emerge seamonkey again while portage's work
>> directory is on tmpfs and
Paul Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Dale wrote:
>> OK. Step by step here so hopefully you and Neil can follow.
>>
>> Freshly booted system.
>> Clear caches just to be sure
>>
>> emerge foo with portages work directory on tmpfs
>> clear caches again
>> emerge foo with portages wo
Michael Mol wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Dale wrote:
>> Nicolas Sebrecht wrote:
>>> The 06/09/12, Dale wrote:
>>>
Not quite. The theory is that if you put portages work directory on
tmpfs, then all the writes and such are done in ram which is faster.
>>> No! This is too muc
Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 09:07:30 -0500, Dale wrote:
>
>> I don't care if emerge uses cache
>> DURING the emerge process because it is always enabled in both tests.
>> The point is whether portage's work directory is on tmpfs or not makes
>> emerges faster.
> It does not, if you
Michael Mol wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Dale wrote:
>> Neil Bothwick wrote:
>>> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 07:48:59 -0500, Dale wrote:
>>>
I don't think that is correct. I am clearing the files in ram. That's
the point of drop_caches is to clear the kernels cache files. See pos
On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 08:37:33 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 4:33 AM, pat wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I've installed Gentoo into VirtualBox. I want it to has static IP address
> > and
> > I've followed Hand book instructions and the OpenRC/net.example. After
> > reboot
> > there's
On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 16:23:57 +0200, Michael Hampicke wrote
>
>
> Yes, I did. When the Gentoo boots to shell there's only loop back interface.
>
> Are you sure that the kernel module for your network interface is loaded?
>
> What's the output of ifconfig -a after a reboot?
ifconfig -a give
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Dale wrote:
> OK. Step by step here so hopefully you and Neil can follow.
>
> Freshly booted system.
> Clear caches just to be sure
>
> emerge foo with portages work directory on tmpfs
> clear caches again
> emerge foo with portages work directory on disk
> clear c
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 4:33 AM, pat wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've installed Gentoo into VirtualBox. I want it to has static IP address and
> I've followed Hand book instructions and the OpenRC/net.example. After reboot
> there's a warning: "WARNING: net.lo has already been started" and each network
> d
> That is already solved (I had selected it somehow) by simply deselecting it.
>
> But is now a little OT. I now try to compile x11-libs/libxcb, and
> dev-python/elementtree is not installed on my system.
There is hope for this matter, see my forum posting:
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-7
> Weird, I'm on 2.8.0-r1 and didn't have to do any hoop jumping to get
> there (~amd64).
Yes, it is really weird thing. :/ I use x86 (i686, my laptop does only support
32 bit; it is a Thinkpad R51).
Regards,
Roland
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 5:42 PM, "Roland Häder" wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I finally got libxml2 compiled, first I had to do this:
>
> # emerge expat
> # emerge python
> # cd /usr/portage/dev-lang/python/
> # emerge python-2.7.3-r2.ebuild
> # cd -
>
> This makes sure that libexpat is there. Now the packa
The 06/09/12, Dale wrote:
> Then take a look at it this way. If I emerge seamonkey with portage's
> work directory on disk and it takes 12 minutes, the first time. Then I
> clear the caches and emerge seamonkey again while portage's work
> directory is on tmpfs and it is 12 minutes. Then repeat
On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 09:07:30 -0500, Dale wrote:
> I don't care if emerge uses cache
> DURING the emerge process because it is always enabled in both tests.
> The point is whether portage's work directory is on tmpfs or not makes
> emerges faster.
It does not, if you have enough RAM, precisely be
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Dale wrote:
> Nicolas Sebrecht wrote:
>> The 06/09/12, Dale wrote:
>>
>>> Not quite. The theory is that if you put portages work directory on
>>> tmpfs, then all the writes and such are done in ram which is faster.
>> No! This is too much simplistic view to explai
Nicolas Sebrecht wrote:
> The 06/09/12, Dale wrote:
>
>> I do get it. I CLEARED #1 and #2, there is no usage of #3 and #4 is not
>> large enough here to matter. So, it is left with #5.
>>
>> See the point? The test was a NORMAL emerge with portages work
>> directory on tmpfs and a NORMAL emerge
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Dale wrote:
> Neil Bothwick wrote:
>> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 07:48:59 -0500, Dale wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think that is correct. I am clearing the files in ram. That's
>>> the point of drop_caches is to clear the kernels cache files. See post
>>> to Nicolas Sebrecht
>
>
> Yes, I did. When the Gentoo boots to shell there's only loop back
> interface.
>
Are you sure that the kernel module for your network interface is loaded?
What's the output of ifconfig -a after a reboot?
Nicolas Sebrecht wrote:
> The 06/09/12, Dale wrote:
>
>> Not quite. The theory is that if you put portages work directory on
>> tmpfs, then all the writes and such are done in ram which is faster.
> No! This is too much simplistic view to explain what you see.
>
> In practice, _all_ the writes alw
> Try `emerge -pvT $foo`. With whatever package $foo you are trying to
> install.
That is already solved (I had selected it somehow) by simply deselecting it.
But is now a little OT. I now try to compile x11-libs/libxcb, and
dev-python/elementtree is not installed on my system.
> Regards,
> Fl
Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 07:48:59 -0500, Dale wrote:
>
>> I don't think that is correct. I am clearing the files in ram. That's
>> the point of drop_caches is to clear the kernels cache files. See post
>> to Nicolas Sebrecht a bit ago.
> Take a step back Dale and read the post
The 06/09/12, Dale wrote:
> Not quite. The theory is that if you put portages work directory on
> tmpfs, then all the writes and such are done in ram which is faster.
No! This is too much simplistic view to explain what you see.
In practice, _all_ the writes always happen in RAM whatever backen
The 06/09/12, Dale wrote:
> I do get it. I CLEARED #1 and #2, there is no usage of #3 and #4 is not
> large enough here to matter. So, it is left with #5.
>
> See the point? The test was a NORMAL emerge with portages work
> directory on tmpfs and a NORMAL emerge with portages work directory o
On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 14:00:22 +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote
> On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 13:21:43 +0100, pat wrote:
>
> > Yes, I did. When the Gentoo boots to shell there's only loop back
> > interface.
>
> Please post contents of /etc/conf.d/net
>
> --
> Neil Bothwick
>
> Top Oxymorons Number 5: Twelve-ou
On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 07:48:59 -0500, Dale wrote:
> I don't think that is correct. I am clearing the files in ram. That's
> the point of drop_caches is to clear the kernels cache files. See post
> to Nicolas Sebrecht a bit ago.
Take a step back Dale and read the posts again. This is not about t
On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 13:21:43 +0100, pat wrote:
> Yes, I did. When the Gentoo boots to shell there's only loop back
> interface.
Please post contents of /etc/conf.d/net
--
Neil Bothwick
Top Oxymorons Number 5: Twelve-ounce pound cake
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 06:31:24 -0500, Dale wrote:
>
>> Not quite. The theory is that if you put portages work directory on
>> tmpfs, then all the writes and such are done in ram which is faster. If
>> you have portages work directory on disk, it will be slower because the
>>
The 06/09/12, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> The only real benefit of using tmpfs is the one you mentioned elsewhere,
> that the disks don't get bothered at all.
Benefits also depends of what the system does during the emerge. If
another process is intensively using the kernel cache and the kernel
cache
Nicolas Sebrecht wrote:
> The 06/09/12, Dale wrote:
>
>> The point you are missing is this. Between those tests, I CLEARED that
>> cache. The thing you and Neil claim that makes a difference does not
>> exist after you clear the cache. I CLEARED that cache between EACH and
>> every test that was
On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 14:10:21 +0200, Michael Hampicke wrote
> 2012/9/6 pat
>Hello,
>
> I've installed Gentoo into VirtualBox. I want it to has static IP address
> and
> I've followed Hand book instructions and the OpenRC/net.example. After
> reboot
> there's a warning: "WARNING: net.lo has already
On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 06:31:24 -0500, Dale wrote:
> Not quite. The theory is that if you put portages work directory on
> tmpfs, then all the writes and such are done in ram which is faster. If
> you have portages work directory on disk, it will be slower because the
> disk is slower.
But the dis
2012/9/6 pat
> Hello,
>
> I've installed Gentoo into VirtualBox. I want it to has static IP address
> and
> I've followed Hand book instructions and the OpenRC/net.example. After
> reboot
> there's a warning: "WARNING: net.lo has already been started" and each
> network
> depending service failes
Hello,
I've installed Gentoo into VirtualBox. I want it to has static IP address and
I've followed Hand book instructions and the OpenRC/net.example. After reboot
there's a warning: "WARNING: net.lo has already been started" and each network
depending service failes to start with: ": waiting for n
The 06/09/12, Dale wrote:
> The point you are missing is this. Between those tests, I CLEARED that
> cache. The thing you and Neil claim that makes a difference does not
> exist after you clear the cache. I CLEARED that cache between EACH and
> every test that was ran whether using tmpfs or not
Nicolas Sebrecht wrote:
> The 06/09/12, Dale wrote:
>
>> The point was
>> whether having portages work directory on tmpfs resulted in speed
>> increases. If you have portages work directory on tmpfs, of course it
>> uses ram. That's what tmpfs
The 06/09/12, Dale wrote:
> The point was
> whether having portages work directory on tmpfs resulted in speed
> increases. If you have portages work directory on tmpfs, of course it
> uses ram. That's what tmpfs is. It's taking what might no
Nicolas Sebrecht wrote:
> The 06/09/12, Dale wrote:
>
>> Then explain to me why it was at times slower while on tmpfs? Trust me,
>> I ran this test many times and in different orders and it did NOT make
>> much if any difference.
> As explained, this is expected if you have enough RAM.
>
> I didn
Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 05:03:55 -0500, Dale wrote:
>
You miss this point not me. I *cleared* that cache. From
kernel.org:
>>> Sorry Dale, but you are missing the point. You cleared the cache
>>> before running emerge, then ran emerge. The first thing emerge did
>>>
Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 05:11:01 -0500, Dale wrote:
>
>> You need to run free, run the command to clear and then run free again
>> so you can see for yourself. If it was just me, I could think I am
>> wrong but this was tested by others too with the same results.
> I'm not sayin
The 06/09/12, Dale wrote:
> Then explain to me why it was at times slower while on tmpfs? Trust me,
> I ran this test many times and in different orders and it did NOT make
> much if any difference.
As explained, this is expected if you have enough RAM.
I didn't check but I would expect that f
On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 05:11:01 -0500, Dale wrote:
> You need to run free, run the command to clear and then run free again
> so you can see for yourself. If it was just me, I could think I am
> wrong but this was tested by others too with the same results.
I'm not saying your test results are wron
On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 05:03:55 -0500, Dale wrote:
> >> You miss this point not me. I *cleared* that cache. From
> >> kernel.org:
> > Sorry Dale, but you are missing the point. You cleared the cache
> > before running emerge, then ran emerge. The first thing emerge did
> > was unpack the tarball
Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 04:15:23 -0500, Dale wrote:
>
>>> You missed the point. One of the first thing emerge will do is to
>>> uncompress the package. At this time, all the files are cached in RAM.
>>> Hence, everything needed for the build/compilation will come from the
>>> cac
Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 04:15:23 -0500, Dale wrote:
>
>>> You missed the point. One of the first thing emerge will do is to
>>> uncompress the package. At this time, all the files are cached in RAM.
>>> Hence, everything needed for the build/compilation will come from the
>>> cac
On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 04:15:23 -0500, Dale wrote:
> > You missed the point. One of the first thing emerge will do is to
> > uncompress the package. At this time, all the files are cached in RAM.
> > Hence, everything needed for the build/compilation will come from the
> > cache like it would do with
Nicolas Sebrecht wrote:
> The 05/09/12, Dale wrote:
>> Michael Mol wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 07:52:45 -0500, Dale wrote:
>>> I might also add, I see no speed improvements in putting portages
>>> work directory on tmpfs.
Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 12:54:51 -0500, Dale wrote:
>
>>> I might also add, I see no speed improvements in putting portages
>>> work directory on tmpfs. I have tested this a few times and the
>>> difference in compile times is just not there.
>> Probably becaus
53 matches
Mail list logo
