| 1 |
Alex Schuster wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi there! |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Is there an advantage in putting the portage tree on an extra partition? |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Currently, I'm using reiserfs, because I read that it is efficient when |
| 7 |
> using many small files. On the other hand I also heard that it tends to |
| 8 |
> get slower with every emerge --sync. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Space is no longer an argument in these days, at least for my desktop |
| 11 |
> machine. But I would like to optimize for speed -- emerge -DputnVj |
| 12 |
> @world takes quite a while to calculate, I assume this is because so many |
| 13 |
> ebuild files have to be accessed. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Any tips on this? Does it make sense to use a special file system just |
| 16 |
> for the portage tree? What would be best? Would it help to re-create this |
| 17 |
> file system from time to time in case it gets slower with every sync? Or |
| 18 |
> wouldn't I notice a difference if I just used a big ext4 partition for |
| 19 |
> all portage related stuff? |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Anyone using a compressed RAM file system for that? :) |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Wonko |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I have mine on its own partition. Faster, not sure but most likely. I |
| 29 |
use ext3 for mine. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Since I am redoing my partitions, I'm looking forward to reading what |
| 32 |
others say. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Dale |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
:-) :-) |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or |
| 40 |
how you interpreted my words! |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Miss the compile output? Hint: |
| 43 |
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n" |
Archives