| 1 |
Am 02.04.2014 20:29, schrieb Alan McKinnon: |
| 2 |
> On 02/04/2014 18:48, fruktopus wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Am 02.04.2014 16:10, schrieb Alan McKinnon: |
| 4 |
>>> On 02/04/2014 14:27, Douglas J Hunley wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> I was reviewing my Portage settings yesterday and I noticed that I have |
| 6 |
>>>> PORTAGE_COMPRESS set (to bzip2, the default) on both of my servers and |
| 7 |
>>>> it occurred to me that both of these servers have filesystems that |
| 8 |
>>>> support compression (btrfs on one, zfs on the other). So I'm wondering |
| 9 |
>>>> if it still makes sense to have PORTAGE_COMPRESS set or if I should |
| 10 |
>>>> unset it and just let the fs-level compression handle it. Portage is |
| 11 |
>>>> already slow, why have it take the time to do this when the fs does it |
| 12 |
>>>> better and transparently? Thoughts on the matter? |
| 13 |
>>> I agree with your reasoning. |
| 14 |
>>> |
| 15 |
>>> PORTAGE_COMPRESS is an ugly hack to get doc files smaller and the need |
| 16 |
>>> for it has long since gone away for the general case and it predates |
| 17 |
>>> filesystems with compression anyway. So do let the fs deal with this |
| 18 |
>>> transparently and avoid the cost of calling bunzip2 everytime you read a |
| 19 |
>>> doc. |
| 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 |
> man 5 make.conf |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
Thank you. |
Archives