On 9 February 2012 15:34, Martin Fick <mfick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thursday, February 09, 2012 04:24:47 pm Hilco Wijbenga > wrote: >> On 9 February 2012 13:53, Martin Fick > <mfick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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, I found [1]. Is that sort of what you had in mind? That would be quite tricky. I have a group of some 60 projects, each with their own "target" directory which would have to be mounted on tmpfs. And the "target" directory is created by Maven, not by me. Not to mention that I shut down my computer at the end of the day. :-) I think I would prefer a somewhat more persistent solution. I certainly have enough space for a very big swap partition. So the whole of ~/my-project would fit on tmpfs. I'm just not sure about making it persistent at the end of the day. [1] http://code.google.com/p/chromium/wiki/LinuxFasterBuilds -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html