Archives
Archives
| From: | James Broadhead <jamesbroadhead@×××××.com> | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| To: | gentoo-user@l.g.o | ||
| Subject: | Re: [gentoo-user] Filesystem with lowest CPU load, acceptable emerge performance, and stable? | ||
| Date: | Tue, 06 Sep 2011 19:31:45 | ||
| Message-Id: | CA+hid6Fe6YK=K1Mf1SNegw+5bHPffbW1Ygb1JW6C-rHbRitzsw@mail.gmail.com | ||
| In Reply to: | Re: [gentoo-user] Filesystem with lowest CPU load, acceptable emerge performance, and stable? by Permjacov Evgeniy |
||
| 1 | On 6 September 2011 19:55, Permjacov Evgeniy <permeakra@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 | > On 09/06/2011 09:26 PM, Pandu Poluan wrote: |
| 3 | >> Disk I/O Characteristic: Occasional writes during 'normal' usage, |
| 4 | >> once-a-week eix-sync + emerge -avuD |
| 5 | >> Priority: Stable (i.e., less chance of corruption), least CPU usage. |
| 6 | |
| 7 | You would have to profile this, but I imagine that the best approach |
| 8 | would be to compile in a RAM disk and copy. I think that you're |
| 9 | probably trying to optimise the wrong part of this problem. |
| 10 | |
| 11 | As for ext3/ext4, the improvements to fsck alone make ext4 the FS of |
| 12 | choice between the two. |
| 13 | |
| 14 | JB |
| Subject | Author |
|---|---|
| Re: [gentoo-user] Filesystem with lowest CPU load, acceptable emerge performance, and stable? | Florian Philipp <lists@×××××××××××.net> |
| Re: [gentoo-user] Filesystem with lowest CPU load, acceptable emerge performance, and stable? | Pandu Poluan <pandu@××××××.info> |