1 |
Am 02.04.2014 16:10, schrieb Alan McKinnon: |
2 |
> On 02/04/2014 14:27, Douglas J Hunley wrote: |
3 |
>> I was reviewing my Portage settings yesterday and I noticed that I have |
4 |
>> PORTAGE_COMPRESS set (to bzip2, the default) on both of my servers and |
5 |
>> it occurred to me that both of these servers have filesystems that |
6 |
>> support compression (btrfs on one, zfs on the other). So I'm wondering |
7 |
>> if it still makes sense to have PORTAGE_COMPRESS set or if I should |
8 |
>> unset it and just let the fs-level compression handle it. Portage is |
9 |
>> already slow, why have it take the time to do this when the fs does it |
10 |
>> better and transparently? Thoughts on the matter? |
11 |
> I agree with your reasoning. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> PORTAGE_COMPRESS is an ugly hack to get doc files smaller and the need |
14 |
> for it has long since gone away for the general case and it predates |
15 |
> filesystems with compression anyway. So do let the fs deal with this |
16 |
> transparently and avoid the cost of calling bunzip2 everytime you read a |
17 |
> doc. |
18 |
|
19 |
Where did you find PORTAGE_COMPRESS? I just checked /etc/portage and |
20 |
some other locations but without luck. Also its not documented. Can you |
21 |
give me a hint. |
22 |
|
23 |
~frukto |