From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Martin Fick Subject: Re: Git, Builds, and Filesystem Type Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 16:34:36 -0700 Organization: CAF Message-ID: <201202091634.36563.mfick@codeaurora.org> References: <201202091453.38564.mfick@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Git Users To: Hilco Wijbenga X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Feb 10 00:34:44 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RvdVi-0004Lf-Mq for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 00:34:43 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758661Ab2BIXei (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Feb 2012 18:34:38 -0500 Received: from wolverine01.qualcomm.com ([199.106.114.254]:30398 "EHLO wolverine01.qualcomm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758450Ab2BIXeh (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Feb 2012 18:34:37 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6615"; a="161978737" Received: from pdmz-css-vrrp.qualcomm.com (HELO mostmsg01.qualcomm.com) ([199.106.114.130]) by wolverine01.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 09 Feb 2012 15:34:37 -0800 Received: from mfick-lnx.localnet (pdmz-snip-v218.qualcomm.com [192.168.218.1]) by mostmsg01.qualcomm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 5A0D810004D1; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 15:34:37 -0800 (PST) User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.32-37-generic; KDE/4.4.5; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thursday, February 09, 2012 04:24:47 pm Hilco Wijbenga wrote: > On 9 February 2012 13:53, Martin Fick wrote: > > On Thursday, February 09, 2012 02:23:18 pm Hilco > > Wijbenga > > > > wrote: > >> For the record, our (Java) project is quite small. > >> It's 43MB (source and images) and the entire > >> directory tree after building is about 1.6GB (this > >> includes all JARs downloaded by Maven). So we're not > >> talking TBs of data. > >> > >> Any thoughts on which FSs to include in my tests? Or > >> simply which FS might be more appropriate? > > > > tmpfs is probably fastest hands down if you can use it > > (even if you have to back it by swap). > > I don't have quite that much RAM. :-) But I am sure that you have that much disk space which you can allocate to swap, if not you already couldn't build it. And tmpfs swapping is still likely faster than a persistent FS (it will not need to block on syncs). If you are benchmarking, it is likely worth you effort since that will probably mark the upper performance bound, -Martin -- Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. which is a member of Code Aurora Forum