| 1 |
Willie Wong writes: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 12:52:55PM +0100, Alex Schuster wrote: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> > I thought the small files of the portage tree especially profit from |
| 6 |
> > the notail option in reiserfs? Did you change the block size? |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> You mean the other way around, right? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Oh dear. Yes. Thanks. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> reiser defaults to tail-packing, |
| 13 |
> which can cause problems with GRUB and LILO, which is why notail is an |
| 14 |
> option which turns off tail-packing for those crazy enough to use |
| 15 |
> reiser on /boot. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> If you use notail on the portage tree, you get rid of that advantage, |
| 18 |
> then Neil is absolutely correct: there's not too much point in |
| 19 |
> journaling the portage tree, and if you actively make reiser |
| 20 |
> not-competitive on the storage-space direction, the only metric left |
| 21 |
> to compare is speed, and ext2 is faster. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Incidentally, if you are willing to sacrifice speed for space, then a |
| 24 |
> sparsefile for /usr/portage may also be an option. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I had this once on a smaller machine, but now I'd prefer it the other way |
| 27 |
around, there's plenty of space available. I have 15G for distfiles and |
| 28 |
pkgdir, so I don't worry about some 100MB for the portage tree. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Wonko |
Archives