Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 22:19:54 +0100 From: RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Best kind of hard drive for heavy use? Message-ID: <20160914221954.00fb1d56@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <20160914175449.185d12b0@archlinux.localdomain> References: <42.56.05022.D3A48D75@dnvrco-oedge02> <20160914120349.76a015cd@gumby.homeunix.com> <20160914175449.185d12b0@archlinux.localdomain>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 17:54:49 +0200 Ralf Mardorf via freebsd-questions wrote: > On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 12:03:49 +0100, RW via freebsd-questions wrote: > >I do almost everything like that on tmpfs. > > That was my suggestion, too. However, it has got one pitfall, the size > of tmpfs. At least on Linux a swap doesn't help, if tmpfs should run > out of space. Swap helps in avoiding occasional problems. When I first started using tmpfs I had 1.5 GB of RAM and 4GB of swap and set a limit 4GB (the maximum for i386). I currently have 16GB of RAM and a tmpfs limit of 25GB I don't need that much, I never even come close to running out of memory for port building. I just means that I don't have worry about it. > Anyway, I nearly compile everything in tmpfs with just > 1.9 GiB, just sometimes I enlarge it to 3 GiB or directly use the hard > disk. A kernel not necessarily fails, but could fail to build with > just 1.9 GiB, something like Firefox fails with 1.9 GiB, but at the > moment I can't remember that 3 GiB ever was too small. I've got 4 GiB > or RAM, but a little bit less is available, so a modern machine with > much more than 4 GiB RAM should allow to chose a huge enough tmpfs. IIRC with 4 GiB RAM you can have up to 16 GiB of swap, so you could support up to about 19 GiB of tmpfs if you want.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20160914221954.00fb1d56>