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 |