1 |
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 12:52:55PM +0100, Alex Schuster wrote: |
2 |
> Neil Bothwick writes: |
3 |
> |
4 |
> > On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 10:35:42 +0100, Alex Schuster wrote: |
5 |
> > > > - best filesystem for portage? something compressed or with small |
6 |
> > > > cluster size maybe. |
7 |
> > > |
8 |
> > > I think reiserfs with the notail option is recommended. |
9 |
> > |
10 |
> > The data I've seen indicates that ext2 is fastest, that's what I use. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> I thought the small files of the portage tree especially profit from the |
13 |
> notail option in reiserfs? Did you change the block size? |
14 |
|
15 |
You mean the other way around, right? reiser defaults to tail-packing, |
16 |
which can cause problems with GRUB and LILO, which is why notail is an |
17 |
option which turns off tail-packing for those crazy enough to use |
18 |
reiser on /boot. |
19 |
|
20 |
If you use notail on the portage tree, you get rid of that advantage, |
21 |
then Neil is absolutely correct: there's not too much point in |
22 |
journaling the portage tree, and if you actively make reiser |
23 |
not-competitive on the storage-space direction, the only metric left |
24 |
to compare is speed, and ext2 is faster. |
25 |
|
26 |
Incidentally, if you are willing to sacrifice speed for space, then a |
27 |
sparsefile for /usr/portage may also be an option. |
28 |
|
29 |
W |
30 |
-- |
31 |
Willie W. Wong wwong@××××××××××××××.edu |
32 |
Data aequatione quotcunque fluentes quantitae involvente fluxiones invenire |
33 |
et vice versa ~~~ I. Newton |