El sáb, 31-03-2012 a las 02:35 -0700, Brian Harring escribió:
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 08:44:02AM +0000, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 10:06:18AM +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > > Looks then that there are several alternatives for portage tree, then,
> > > maybe the option would be to add a note to Gentoo Handbook explaining
> > > the cons of having portage tree on a standard partition and, then, put a
> > > link to a wiki page (for example) where all this alternatives are
> > > explained.
> > >
> > > What do you think about this approach?
> > I don't like the "cons" approach, as it gives the impression that users are
> > pushed into a negative solution, whereas the current situation works just
> > fine for almost all users. The approach for a different partition is for
> > performance reasons (which most users don't have any negative feelings
> > about) and as such might be read as a "ricer" approach.
> For modern hardware w/ a modern kernel (or at least >=2.6.38 for the
> dcache resolution optimizations)... does anyone actually have real
> performance stats for this?
> If the notion is a seperate FS, one tailored to the portage tree's
> usage models (tail packing for example), sure, grok that although I
> question how much people really are getting out of it.
> In the past, situation definitely differed- I'm just wondering if the
> gain is actually worth debating it, rather than just ignoring it (or
> sticking it in a foot note for people trying to use durons).
I did performance stats one year ago or so, but I don't have time to
redo all of them to simply confirm how behave now with recent kernel (in
that time, I checked reiserfs, ext2 with multiple block sizes).
Regarding disk space usage, it's still valid today for sure