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 |