1 |
El lun, 30-03-2009 a las 16:30 +0000, Duncan escribió: |
2 |
> Pacho Ramos <pacho@××××××××××××××××××××××××.es> posted |
3 |
> 1238412618.18113.15.camel@localhost, excerpted below, on Mon, 30 Mar 2009 |
4 |
> 13:30:18 +0200: |
5 |
> |
6 |
> > I am trying to know what filesystem+blocksize combination could be |
7 |
> > better for the kind of files stored in portage tree. |
8 |
> > |
9 |
> > In the past, I have been using reiserfs for my / partition and I had |
10 |
> > /usr/portage under it. Later, I moved /usr/portage to a different |
11 |
> > partition (distfiles go to a different directory) and switched it to |
12 |
> > ext2 (as, in theory, ext2 should be faster as has no journaling) and |
13 |
> > 2048 as blocksize (that, of course, shrinks portage tree sizes but I am |
14 |
> > unsure about its effects from a performance point of view) |
15 |
> |
16 |
> You are aware of the various reiserfs mount options, including notail and |
17 |
> nolog, right? See the mount manpage. reiserfs was tuned for small |
18 |
> files, but these may speed it up even further. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> Other than that, much as I could suggest all sorts of stuff (like |
21 |
> PORTAGE_TMPDIR as tmpfs, will probably make more of a difference if you |
22 |
> have a decent amount of memory), I'll point you to the user forums and |
23 |
> list as more appropriate. This list is really for discussion of portage |
24 |
> and portage related development, not so much user portage speed tips, but |
25 |
> ask in the user list and forums and you'll surely get all sorts of info! |
26 |
> =:^) |
27 |
> |
28 |
|
29 |
Thanks, finally seems that, in my case, reiserfs with nolog,noatime |
30 |
works really fast and with a smaller size (thanks to "tail") :-D |
31 |
|
32 |
Best regards! |