| 1 |
On 03/31/2012 04:25 PM, Walter Dnes wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 10:42:50AM -0700, Zac Medico wrote |
| 3 |
>> On 03/31/2012 06:34 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> About the wiki page, I can only document reiserfs+tail usage as it's the |
| 5 |
>>> one I use and I know, about other alternatives like using squashfs, loop |
| 6 |
>>> mount... I cannot promise anything as I simply don't know how to set |
| 7 |
>>> them. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> Squashfs is really simple to use: |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> mksquashfs /usr/portage portage.squashfs |
| 12 |
>> mount -o loop portage.squashfs /usr/portage |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Don't the "space-saving filesystems" (squashfs, reiserfs-with-tail, |
| 15 |
> etc) run more slowly due to their extra finicky steps to save space? If |
| 16 |
> you really want to save a gigabyte or 2, run "eclean -d distfiles" and |
| 17 |
> "localepurge" after every emerge update. I've also cobbled together my |
| 18 |
> own "autodepclean" script that check for, and optionally unmerges |
| 19 |
> unneeded stuff that was pulled in as a dependancy of a package that has |
| 20 |
> since been removed. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Well, in this case squashfs is more about improving access time than |
| 23 |
saving space. You end up with the whole tree stored in a mostly |
| 24 |
contiguous chunk of disk space, which minimizes seek time. |
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Thanks, |
| 27 |
Zac |
Archives