| 1 |
Brian Kroth wrote: |
| 2 |
> I recommend using your home server as a build server and hosting the |
| 3 |
> portage tree there for the other clients to (auto)mount via NFS. |
| 4 |
> There's some docs in the wiki on how to do this. It will free you of |
| 5 |
> the need to be concerned about a separate portage partition on each of |
| 6 |
> these other machines. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Brian |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Mikko Husari wrote: |
| 11 |
>> Daniel Armyr kirjoitti: |
| 12 |
>>>> i was wonderin, what kind of partition + fs table would be |
| 13 |
>>>> |
| 14 |
>>> optimal on server and/or desktop. What are you planning on using the |
| 15 |
>>> computer for? And when will you |
| 16 |
>>> need the rapid disk access that raid0 gives you? --DA |
| 17 |
>>> |
| 18 |
>>> |
| 19 |
>>> |
| 20 |
>> Well, it is just for sake of wondering, and it would not hurt to have |
| 21 |
>> the speediest system ever, even if i would ever need it. That |
| 22 |
>> server/desktop part means that i have desktop computers and one home |
| 23 |
>> server. It also means that id like to know if the setup would be |
| 24 |
>> different. The kind of stuff im wondering is, what should reside on |
| 25 |
>> separate disks to receive any system speedup, even in theory. |
| 26 |
well, my experiences with distcc has not been quite nice, some of the |
| 27 |
packages does not behave well with distributed compiling... or what did |
| 28 |
you mean with buildsystem? and searching from portage over nfs is much |
| 29 |
slower than searching local portage tree... |
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
gentoo-performance@g.o mailing list |
Archives