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 1SDyVQ-0002ES-IV for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 31 Mar 2012 13:38:12 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3E5F6E0D9D; Sat, 31 Mar 2012 13:37:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D59FDE1005 for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2012 13:36:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.204] (127.151.222.87.dynamic.jazztel.es [87.222.151.127]) (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 B6ACB1B4014 for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2012 13:36:58 +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: <20120331093544.GA19939@localhost> 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> <1333094778.1407.9.camel@belkin4> <20120331084402.GA23183@gentoo.org> <20120331093544.GA19939@localhost> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-QpGHWI1YcC700MslSCqw" Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 15:36:55 +0200 Message-ID: <1333201015.29219.4.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: 6e91154f-2bd1-4621-873b-e8ec91e8ea7f X-Archives-Hash: 77d993f26b0849eb33d5807aeaffde7c --=-QpGHWI1YcC700MslSCqw Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable El s=C3=A1b, 31-03-2012 a las 02:35 -0700, Brian Harring escribi=C3=B3: > On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 08:44:02AM +0000, Sven Vermeulen wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 10:06:18AM +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote: > > > 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, pu= t a > > > link to a wiki page (for example) where all this alternatives are > > > explained. > > >=20 > > > What do you think about this approach?=20 > >=20 > > I don't like the "cons" approach, as it gives the impression that users= are > > pushed into a negative solution, whereas the current situation works ju= st > > fine for almost all users. The approach for a different partition is fo= r > > performance reasons (which most users don't have any negative feelings > > about) and as such might be read as a "ricer" approach. >=20 > For modern hardware w/ a modern kernel (or at least >=3D2.6.38 for the= =20 > dcache resolution optimizations)... does anyone actually have real=20 > performance stats for this? >=20 > If the notion is a seperate FS, one tailored to the portage tree's=20 > usage models (tail packing for example), sure, grok that although I=20 > question how much people really are getting out of it. >=20 > In the past, situation definitely differed- I'm just wondering if the=20 > gain is actually worth debating it, rather than just ignoring it (or=20 > sticking it in a foot note for people trying to use durons). > ~harring >=20 >=20 I did performance stats one year ago or so, but I don't have time to redo all of them to simply confirm how behave now with recent kernel (in that time, I checked reiserfs, ext2 with multiple block sizes). Regarding disk space usage, it's still valid today for sure --=-QpGHWI1YcC700MslSCqw 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) iEYEABECAAYFAk93CHcACgkQCaWpQKGI+9RCoACeI35B6kLJJIeummnRWiJZS3tk EIMAnjlmy64qZ/GN0w4oz72I87oDmaHv =+xG6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-QpGHWI1YcC700MslSCqw--