Re: [gentoo-dev] About suggesting to create a separate partition for portage tree in handbook

[Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org>]

El sáb, 31-03-2012 a las 17:33 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
> On 03/31/2012 04:25 PM, Walter Dnes wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 10:42:50AM -0700, Zac Medico wrote
> >> On 03/31/2012 06:34 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> >>> About the wiki page, I can only document reiserfs+tail usage as it's the
> >>> one I use and I know, about other alternatives like using squashfs, loop
> >>> mount... I cannot promise anything as I simply don't know how to set
> >>> them.
> >>
> >> Squashfs is really simple to use:
> >>
> >>    mksquashfs /usr/portage portage.squashfs
> >>    mount -o loop portage.squashfs /usr/portage
> > 
> >   Don't the "space-saving filesystems" (squashfs, reiserfs-with-tail,
> > etc) run more slowly due to their extra finicky steps to save space?  If
> > you really want to save a gigabyte or 2, run "eclean -d distfiles" and
> > "localepurge" after every emerge update.  I've also cobbled together my
> > own "autodepclean" script that check for, and optionally unmerges
> > unneeded stuff that was pulled in as a dependancy of a package that has
> > since been removed.
> 
> Well, in this case squashfs is more about improving access time than
> saving space. You end up with the whole tree stored in a mostly
> contiguous chunk of disk space, which minimizes seek time.

Would be possible to generate and provide squashed files at the same
time tarballs with portage tree snapshots are generated? mksquashfs can
take a lot of resources depending on the machine, but providing the
squashed images would still benefit people allowing them to download and
mount them