1 |
El mar, 27-03-2012 a las 16:05 -0400, Alec Moskvin escribió: |
2 |
> On Tuesday 27 March 2012 14:34:03, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote: |
3 |
> > On Tue, 2012-03-27 at 20:01 +0200, Sven Vermeulen wrote: |
4 |
> > > On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 07:49:00PM +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
5 |
> > > > I am a bit surprised handbook still doesn't suggest people to create a |
6 |
> > > > separate partition for /usr/portage tree. I remember my first Gentoo |
7 |
> > > > systems had it inside / and that lead to a lot of fragmentation, much |
8 |
> > > > slower "emerge -pvuDN world" (I benchmarked it when I changed my |
9 |
> > > > partitioning scheme to put /usr/portage) separate and a lot of disk |
10 |
> > > > space lost (I remember portage tree reached around 3 GB of disk space |
11 |
> > > > while I am now running with 300MB) |
12 |
> > > > |
13 |
> > > > Could handbook suggest people to put /usr/portage on a different |
14 |
> > > > partition then? The only doubt I have is what filesystem would be better |
15 |
> > > > for it, in my case I am using reiserfs with tail enabled, but maybe you |
16 |
> > > > have other different setups. |
17 |
> > > |
18 |
> > > To be honest, I don't think it is wise to describe it in the Gentoo Handbook |
19 |
> > > just yet. I don't mind having it documented elsewhere, but the separate |
20 |
> > > partition is not mandatory for getting Gentoo up and running. The |
21 |
> > > instructions currently also just give an example partition layout and tell |
22 |
> > > users that different layouts are perfectly possible. |
23 |
> > > |
24 |
> > > We need to take into consideration what is needed (must) for a Gentoo |
25 |
> > > installation, what is seriously recommended (should), what is nice to have |
26 |
> > > (could), etc. And for me, having a separate /usr/portage is a nice-to-have |
27 |
> > > imo. |
28 |
> > |
29 |
> > The partitioning scheme is something that the user needs to decide on |
30 |
> > *before* getting Gentoo up and running. After the user had finished |
31 |
> > installing the operating system, it's too late to inform him about the |
32 |
> > advantages of a separate /usr/portage. |
33 |
> |
34 |
> It does not have to be a separate *physical* partition. It could be set |
35 |
> up as a loop device without any real downsides: |
36 |
> |
37 |
> /usr/portage/tree.ext4 /usr/portage/tree ext4 loop,noatime 0 0 |
38 |
> |
39 |
> An advantage is that it can be easily resized if necessary. |
40 |
> |
41 |
> > IMHO, chapter 4 of the handbook needs the following changes: |
42 |
> > |
43 |
> > 1. ext4, not ext3, needs to be recommended as the default filesystem. We |
44 |
> > have kernel 3.2 marked stable, there is no need to keep talking about |
45 |
> > ext4 as if it's something experimental. |
46 |
> > |
47 |
> > 2. The handbook should mention that a separate small /usr/portage |
48 |
> > partition can noticeably improve performance for users with a rotational |
49 |
> > hard drive, and that it's not needed for solid-state drives. It should |
50 |
> > also mention that using Gentoo with a separate /usr/portage partition |
51 |
> > will require some additional configuration (such as changing DISTDIR and |
52 |
> > PKGDIR to avoid running out of space). |
53 |
> > |
54 |
> > -Alexandre. |
55 |
> > |
56 |
> > |
57 |
> |
58 |
> |
59 |
|
60 |
(I think this last reply can complete my replies to this thread for |
61 |
now :)) |
62 |
|
63 |
Looks then that there are several alternatives for portage tree, then, |
64 |
maybe the option would be to add a note to Gentoo Handbook explaining |
65 |
the cons of having portage tree on a standard partition and, then, put a |
66 |
link to a wiki page (for example) where all this alternatives are |
67 |
explained. |
68 |
|
69 |
What do you think about this approach? |