From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1SDWs5-000726-54 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 08:07:45 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 398F7E0C9F; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 08:07:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18A7FE0C6C for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 08:06:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.33] (58.Red-95-123-28.staticIP.rima-tde.net [95.123.28.58]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: pacho) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D86E61B400D for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 08:06:22 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] About suggesting to create a separate partition for portage tree in handbook From: Pacho Ramos To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20120327200532.GA15040@thinkpad.rutgers.edu> References: <20337.28987.736877.961717@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20120327154239.GA17394@gentoo.org> <1332870540.18466.9.camel@belkin4> <20120327180158.GA1468@siphos.be> <1332873243.11827.15.camel@rook> <20120327200532.GA15040@thinkpad.rutgers.edu> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-n11F2zVXfQkYOrzEsvTN" Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 10:06:18 +0200 Message-ID: <1333094778.1407.9.camel@belkin4> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.3 X-Archives-Salt: f98ffbcb-4f81-4a8a-a1f1-27eb67278e64 X-Archives-Hash: 2db314e2c601a1bc4772437074c85c52 --=-n11F2zVXfQkYOrzEsvTN Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable El mar, 27-03-2012 a las 16:05 -0400, Alec Moskvin escribi=C3=B3: > On Tuesday 27 March 2012 14:34:03, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote: > > On Tue, 2012-03-27 at 20:01 +0200, Sven Vermeulen wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 07:49:00PM +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote: > > > > I am a bit surprised handbook still doesn't suggest people to creat= e a > > > > separate partition for /usr/portage tree. I remember my first Gento= o > > > > systems had it inside / and that lead to a lot of fragmentation, mu= ch > > > > slower "emerge -pvuDN world" (I benchmarked it when I changed my > > > > partitioning scheme to put /usr/portage) separate and a lot of disk > > > > space lost (I remember portage tree reached around 3 GB of disk spa= ce > > > > while I am now running with 300MB) > > > >=20 > > > > Could handbook suggest people to put /usr/portage on a different > > > > partition then? The only doubt I have is what filesystem would be b= etter > > > > for it, in my case I am using reiserfs with tail enabled, but maybe= you > > > > have other different setups. > > >=20 > > > To be honest, I don't think it is wise to describe it in the Gentoo H= andbook > > > just yet. I don't mind having it documented elsewhere, but the separa= te > > > partition is not mandatory for getting Gentoo up and running. The > > > instructions currently also just give an example partition layout and= tell > > > users that different layouts are perfectly possible. > > >=20 > > > We need to take into consideration what is needed (must) for a Gentoo > > > installation, what is seriously recommended (should), what is nice to= have > > > (could), etc. And for me, having a separate /usr/portage is a nice-to= -have > > > imo. > >=20 > > The partitioning scheme is something that the user needs to decide on > > *before* getting Gentoo up and running. After the user had finished > > installing the operating system, it's too late to inform him about the > > advantages of a separate /usr/portage. >=20 > It does not have to be a separate *physical* partition. It could be set > up as a loop device without any real downsides: >=20 > /usr/portage/tree.ext4 /usr/portage/tree ext4 loop,noatime 0 0 >=20 > An advantage is that it can be easily resized if necessary. >=20 > > IMHO, chapter 4 of the handbook needs the following changes: > >=20 > > 1. ext4, not ext3, needs to be recommended as the default filesystem. W= e > > have kernel 3.2 marked stable, there is no need to keep talking about > > ext4 as if it's something experimental. > >=20 > > 2. The handbook should mention that a separate small /usr/portage > > partition can noticeably improve performance for users with a rotationa= l > > hard drive, and that it's not needed for solid-state drives. It should > > also mention that using Gentoo with a separate /usr/portage partition > > will require some additional configuration (such as changing DISTDIR an= d > > PKGDIR to avoid running out of space). > >=20 > > -Alexandre. > >=20 > >=20 >=20 >=20 (I think this last reply can complete my replies to this thread for now :)) Looks then that there are several alternatives for portage tree, then, maybe the option would be to add a note to Gentoo Handbook explaining the cons of having portage tree on a standard partition and, then, put a link to a wiki page (for example) where all this alternatives are explained. What do you think about this approach?=20 --=-n11F2zVXfQkYOrzEsvTN Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAk91aXoACgkQCaWpQKGI+9QXnwCfbBVh1GooGFGXk0gDds+aceLI coIAmgKH60yz/Eh09WQyMHPoidm26H5R =av8E -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-n11F2zVXfQkYOrzEsvTN--