| 1 |
On 02/04/2014 18:48, fruktopus wrote: |
| 2 |
> Am 02.04.2014 16:10, schrieb Alan McKinnon: |
| 3 |
>> On 02/04/2014 14:27, Douglas J Hunley wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> I was reviewing my Portage settings yesterday and I noticed that I have |
| 5 |
>>> PORTAGE_COMPRESS set (to bzip2, the default) on both of my servers and |
| 6 |
>>> it occurred to me that both of these servers have filesystems that |
| 7 |
>>> support compression (btrfs on one, zfs on the other). So I'm wondering |
| 8 |
>>> if it still makes sense to have PORTAGE_COMPRESS set or if I should |
| 9 |
>>> unset it and just let the fs-level compression handle it. Portage is |
| 10 |
>>> already slow, why have it take the time to do this when the fs does it |
| 11 |
>>> better and transparently? Thoughts on the matter? |
| 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 |
> Where did you find PORTAGE_COMPRESS? I just checked /etc/portage and |
| 21 |
> some other locations but without luck. Also its not documented. Can you |
| 22 |
> give me a hint. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
man 5 make.conf |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 28 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives