Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] About suggesting to create a separate partition for portage tree in handbook
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 09:36:57
Message-Id: 20120331093544.GA19939@localhost
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] About suggesting to create a separate partition for portage tree in handbook by Sven Vermeulen
1 On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 08:44:02AM +0000, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
2 > On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 10:06:18AM +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote:
3 > > Looks then that there are several alternatives for portage tree, then,
4 > > maybe the option would be to add a note to Gentoo Handbook explaining
5 > > the cons of having portage tree on a standard partition and, then, put a
6 > > link to a wiki page (for example) where all this alternatives are
7 > > explained.
8 > >
9 > > What do you think about this approach?
10 >
11 > I don't like the "cons" approach, as it gives the impression that users are
12 > pushed into a negative solution, whereas the current situation works just
13 > fine for almost all users. The approach for a different partition is for
14 > performance reasons (which most users don't have any negative feelings
15 > about) and as such might be read as a "ricer" approach.
17 For modern hardware w/ a modern kernel (or at least >=2.6.38 for the
18 dcache resolution optimizations)... does anyone actually have real
19 performance stats for this?
21 If the notion is a seperate FS, one tailored to the portage tree's
22 usage models (tail packing for example), sure, grok that although I
23 question how much people really are getting out of it.
25 In the past, situation definitely differed- I'm just wondering if the
26 gain is actually worth debating it, rather than just ignoring it (or
27 sticking it in a foot note for people trying to use durons).
28 ~harring