Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] PORTAGE_COMPRESS
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2014 14:11:23
Message-Id: 533C1A64.2010208@gmail.com
In Reply to: [gentoo-user] PORTAGE_COMPRESS by Douglas J Hunley
1 On 02/04/2014 14:27, Douglas J Hunley wrote:
2 > I was reviewing my Portage settings yesterday and I noticed that I have
3 > PORTAGE_COMPRESS set (to bzip2, the default) on both of my servers and
4 > it occurred to me that both of these servers have filesystems that
5 > support compression (btrfs on one, zfs on the other). So I'm wondering
6 > if it still makes sense to have PORTAGE_COMPRESS set or if I should
7 > unset it and just let the fs-level compression handle it. Portage is
8 > already slow, why have it take the time to do this when the fs does it
9 > better and transparently? Thoughts on the matter?
10
11
12 I agree with your reasoning.
13
14 PORTAGE_COMPRESS is an ugly hack to get doc files smaller and the need
15 for it has long since gone away for the general case and it predates
16 filesystems with compression anyway. So do let the fs deal with this
17 transparently and avoid the cost of calling bunzip2 everytime you read a
18 doc.
19
20
21
22 --
23 Alan McKinnon
24 alan.mckinnon@×××××.com

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-user] PORTAGE_COMPRESS fruktopus <fruktopus@×××××.com>