From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 484711381F3 for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2013 12:06:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 98297E09DF; Sun, 21 Jul 2013 12:06:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F85DE09A9 for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2013 12:06:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.33] (76.Red-2-137-68.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net [2.137.68.76]) (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 5663233E7C0 for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2013 12:06:16 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1374408372.20076.2.camel@localhost> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] About suggesting to create a separate partition for portage tree in handbook From: Pacho Ramos To: gentoo-dev Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 14:06:12 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20130721135735.1cda757d@gentoo.org> 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> <1333200867.29219.2.camel@belkin4> <4F77421A.9030306@gentoo.org> <20120331232508.GA18617@waltdnes.org> <4F77A269.1070203@gentoo.org> <1374406937.23081.58.camel@localhost> <20130721135735.1cda757d@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.8.3 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: dadcaef6-1c9b-484d-aebb-4f739bd76d9b X-Archives-Hash: d0bbe1dc975c6edb8d6b1aa3722fc5f1 El dom, 21-07-2013 a las 13:57 +0200, Michał Górny escribió: [...] > 5. I have doubts about 'emerge -1vDtu @world' speed. It is very > subjective feeling but I feel like reiserfs was actually faster in this > regard. However, space savings would surely benefit our users. > I also feel it faster (or, at least, not slower) with reiserfs, but going from ~300 MB to 79. Not sure if it would benefit from putting squashed image in a different filesystem (it was placed in /root, that is ext4 in my case). Maybe it would be faster if generated image was put in /var/tmp/portage (that is tmpfs in my case) But I am testing it with plain squashfs (without write support)