| 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. |
| 16 |
|
| 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? |
| 20 |
|
| 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. |
| 24 |
|
| 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 |
Archives