1 |
El sáb, 31-03-2012 a las 02:35 -0700, Brian Harring escribió: |
2 |
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 08:44:02AM +0000, Sven Vermeulen wrote: |
3 |
> > On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 10:06:18AM +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
4 |
> > > Looks then that there are several alternatives for portage tree, then, |
5 |
> > > maybe the option would be to add a note to Gentoo Handbook explaining |
6 |
> > > the cons of having portage tree on a standard partition and, then, put a |
7 |
> > > link to a wiki page (for example) where all this alternatives are |
8 |
> > > explained. |
9 |
> > > |
10 |
> > > What do you think about this approach? |
11 |
> > |
12 |
> > I don't like the "cons" approach, as it gives the impression that users are |
13 |
> > pushed into a negative solution, whereas the current situation works just |
14 |
> > fine for almost all users. The approach for a different partition is for |
15 |
> > performance reasons (which most users don't have any negative feelings |
16 |
> > about) and as such might be read as a "ricer" approach. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> For modern hardware w/ a modern kernel (or at least >=2.6.38 for the |
19 |
> dcache resolution optimizations)... does anyone actually have real |
20 |
> performance stats for this? |
21 |
> |
22 |
> If the notion is a seperate FS, one tailored to the portage tree's |
23 |
> usage models (tail packing for example), sure, grok that although I |
24 |
> question how much people really are getting out of it. |
25 |
> |
26 |
> In the past, situation definitely differed- I'm just wondering if the |
27 |
> gain is actually worth debating it, rather than just ignoring it (or |
28 |
> sticking it in a foot note for people trying to use durons). |
29 |
> ~harring |
30 |
> |
31 |
> |
32 |
|
33 |
I did performance stats one year ago or so, but I don't have time to |
34 |
redo all of them to simply confirm how behave now with recent kernel (in |
35 |
that time, I checked reiserfs, ext2 with multiple block sizes). |
36 |
Regarding disk space usage, it's still valid today for sure |