1 |
Daniel Gryniewicz wrote: |
2 |
> On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 09:26 +0200, Mikko Husari wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
>> hi! |
5 |
>> |
6 |
>> i was wonderin (also tried my luck on perfomance-gentoo, |
7 |
>> but no one home), what kind of partition + fs table would |
8 |
>> be optimal on server and/or desktop. afaik, /usr/portage |
9 |
>> would be on its own partition, and perhaps reiserfs and raid0. |
10 |
>> distfiles should be on a different partition, so it would |
11 |
>> not be in the way of portage itself... but, what about other |
12 |
>> parts of gentoo/linux. and is journaling filesystem over |
13 |
>> striping raid just asking for trouble? |
14 |
>> |
15 |
>> |
16 |
> |
17 |
> In general, reiserfs is considered dead by the linux kernel guys, and by |
18 |
> it's last remaining maintainer in particular (see |
19 |
> http://linux.wordpress.com/2006/09/27/suse-102-ditching-reiserfs-as-it-default-fs/ for his email...) So, you probably want ext3 at this point. There will be an upgrade path from ext3 to ext4, when ext4 is stable. |
20 |
> |
21 |
> Running a journaled filesystem is completely orthogonal to the |
22 |
> underlying storage. You always want a journal on large filesystems, |
23 |
> because otherwise you will have huge (linear with the size of the |
24 |
> filesystem) fsck times. In addition, a journaled FS is safer than a |
25 |
> non-journaled one, w.r.t. data loss. |
26 |
> |
27 |
> Putting /usr/portage on it's own filesystem shouldn't make a huge |
28 |
> difference in performance, especially if it's on the same spindles as |
29 |
> other filesystems. /usr/portage is a high access file tree, with the |
30 |
> sole exception of syncing. Other than that, it's relatively low access. |
31 |
> Things like "emerge -auvDN world" hit the metadata cache fairly hard, |
32 |
> but that cache is designed to be fairly quick. So, putting /usr/portage |
33 |
> on it's own filesystem will generally only make your system less |
34 |
> flexible (even if you use LVM2, which you *definitely* should do). |
35 |
> |
36 |
> Personally, I run RAID5 on my system, rather than striping. It's almost |
37 |
> as fast as striping on all modern systems, and has the huge advantage of |
38 |
> being able to recover from disk failure (of which I've had 2 on that |
39 |
> system over time). With striping, if a disk goes, you lose everything. |
40 |
> |
41 |
> Personally, my partition table looks like this: |
42 |
> |
43 |
> /boot - 100M (or 100M + 2 * memory, if I use a swapfile) |
44 |
> swap - 2 * memory (if I don't use a swapfile) |
45 |
> / - 10G |
46 |
> /home - The rest |
47 |
> |
48 |
> Except my file server, which has |
49 |
> /home - 10G |
50 |
> /storage - the rest |
51 |
> |
52 |
> I do put PORTAGE_TMPDIR in /home/portage, tho, because that can take |
53 |
> large amounts of disk over time. |
54 |
> |
55 |
> Daniel |
56 |
> |
57 |
> |
58 |
hmm, im really new to all that lvm stuff but i think i have a general |
59 |
idea about it, does it reduce performance at all? |
60 |
-- |
61 |
gentoo-desktop@g.o mailing list |