| 1 |
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 11:59:01 +0200, Ralf Stephan wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> > This Depends largely on the "type" of files. I've got my portage |
| 4 |
> > tree on a reiserfs, and in comparison to ext3, it saves couple |
| 5 |
> > 100 (one-zero-zero) megs! |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> OTOH, you may not need to switch to reiser for that. |
| 8 |
> It may simply be a matter of giving /usr/portage its own |
| 9 |
> partition and a smaller block size. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
You would only save space like that if the partition was only just big |
| 12 |
enough to hold the portage tree. With the amount of file churn in the |
| 13 |
tree, the filesystem would get very fragmented very quickly. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
-- |
| 17 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I don't know what makes you tick but I wish it was a time bomb. |
Archives