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