1 |
On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 22:09:26 +0700 |
2 |
Pandu Poluan <pandu@××××××.info> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On Mar 10, 2012 8:33 PM, "Alex Schuster" <wonko@×××××××××.org> wrote: |
5 |
> > |
6 |
> > Hi there! |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> > Is there an advantage in putting the portage tree on an extra |
9 |
> > partition? |
10 |
> > |
11 |
> > Currently, I'm using reiserfs, because I read that it is efficient |
12 |
> > when using many small files. On the other hand I also heard that it |
13 |
> > tends to get slower with every emerge --sync. |
14 |
> > |
15 |
> > Space is no longer an argument in these days, at least for my |
16 |
> > desktop machine. But I would like to optimize for speed -- emerge |
17 |
> > -DputnVj @world takes quite a while to calculate, I assume this is |
18 |
> > because so many ebuild files have to be accessed. |
19 |
> > |
20 |
> > Any tips on this? Does it make sense to use a special file system |
21 |
> > just for the portage tree? What would be best? Would it help to |
22 |
> > re-create this file system from time to time in case it gets slower |
23 |
> > with every sync? Or wouldn't I notice a difference if I just used a |
24 |
> > big ext4 partition for all portage related stuff? |
25 |
> > |
26 |
> > Anyone using a compressed RAM file system for that? :) |
27 |
> > |
28 |
> |
29 |
> This had been my burning question when I was deploying the company's |
30 |
> production server, and forced me to do some research: |
31 |
> |
32 |
> * reiserfs is amazingly fast for reads, but suffers on simultaneous |
33 |
> writes |
34 |
> * reiserfs does not have inode limits |
35 |
> * reiserfs' notail affects performance greatly depending on the |
36 |
> nature of the system: I/O-bound (use notail) or CPU-bound (don't use |
37 |
> notail) |
38 |
> * reiserfs, if mounted without notail, is very space-efficient |
39 |
> |
40 |
> So, I end up with the following mix: |
41 |
> |
42 |
> * ext2 for /boot |
43 |
> * reiserfs for /usr/portage and /var/tmp (RAM is at premium; can't use |
44 |
> tmpfs) |
45 |
> * ext4 for everything else |
46 |
> |
47 |
> This cocktail has been serving me well. I don't need advanced |
48 |
> filesystems like ZFS, XFS, or btrfs, because my servers are |
49 |
> virtualized, and the advanced features (e.g., snapshot) is handled by |
50 |
> the underlying hypervisor (XenServer) and SAN Storage (we use NetApp). |
51 |
> |
52 |
> Rgds, |
53 |
|
54 |
That's very close to what I do (though not for the same |
55 |
extensively-researched reasons :). I added an extra bit of twiddling |
56 |
in make.conf: |
57 |
|
58 |
DISTDIR="/usr/local/distfiles" # On /. |
59 |
PKGDIR="/usr/local/packages" # On /. |
60 |
PORTDIR="/mnt/portage/gentoo" # /mnt/portage is reiserfs and has /layman too |
61 |
|
62 |
This way the requirements for the portage partition grow much more |
63 |
gradually (changed that due to overflow once), and on the random |
64 |
chance that reiserfs gets corrupted, I don't lose all my |
65 |
fetch-restricted distfiles. |
66 |
|
67 |
- Bryan |