|
|
Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
|
Attn: Laptop Ufies | by yazdi | 2007-10-22 05:27:42 |
|
More RAM is almost always better. | by Qcumber-some | 2007-10-22 05:41:00 |
|
Even if you don't use the RAM right away, | by roger G. rapid | 2007-10-22 05:56:04 |
|
I'm running both WinXP and Linux with Ramdisk | by Qcumber-some | 2007-10-22 06:10:44 |
|
ooOoo, neat. | by Freakazoid | 2007-10-22 10:33:42 |
| Compiling is disk-space intensive |
by PeKaJe |
2007-10-22 14:32:56 |
| IMO, you'll be infinitely better off by leaving the RAM to be disk cache, and to be available for the compiles (I've seen one single compile process suck up half a gig once). Sure, there are a lot of disk writes, but if usually running (# of CPUs)+1 parallel compiles, you won't notice that. And don't even think of compiling OpenOffice. It takes several gigabytes in temporary storage space while compiling. tmpfs will eventually favor using swap, but then you're back to slightly more overhead than just using the disk in the first place. In short, it might provide a benefit for many compiles, but it's likely to totally kill others. As Murphy will have it, it'll probably happen when you're not in a position to monitor the progress and intervene. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
Right, right, and nevertheless :-) | by Qcumber-some | 2007-10-22 14:57:03 |
|
It all depends on the amount of RAM, of course | by PeKaJe | 2007-10-22 15:47:18 |
|
|
[Todays Cartoon Discussion]
[News Index]
|
|
