[gentoo-portage-dev] Recommendation about faster (not smaller) filesystem and blocksize combination for portage tree

[gentoo-portage-dev] Recommendation about faster (not smaller) filesystem and blocksize combination for portage tree

[Pacho Ramos]

Hello

I am trying to know what filesystem+blocksize combination could be
better for the kind of files stored in portage tree.

In the past, I have been using reiserfs for my / partition and I
had /usr/portage under it. Later, I moved /usr/portage to a different
partition (distfiles go to a different directory) and switched it to
ext2 (as, in theory, ext2 should be faster as has no journaling) and
2048 as blocksize (that, of course, shrinks portage tree sizes but I am
unsure about its effects from a performance point of view)

Of course, I am not asking you for benchmarks or something else, I am
simply asking for your opinions about what would be better combination
from a performance point of view of filesystem+blocksize (or, at least,
what blocksize would be better for speed, I can test filesystems later
based on it)

Thanks a lot for your recommendations :-)

[gentoo-portage-dev] Re: Recommendation about faster (not smaller) filesystem and blocksize combination for portage tree

[Duncan]

Pacho Ramos <pacho@condmat1.ciencias.uniovi.es> posted
1238412618.18113.15.camel@localhost, excerpted below, on  Mon, 30 Mar 2009
13:30:18 +0200:

> I am trying to know what filesystem+blocksize combination could be
> better for the kind of files stored in portage tree.
> 
> In the past, I have been using reiserfs for my / partition and I had
> /usr/portage under it. Later, I moved /usr/portage to a different
> partition (distfiles go to a different directory) and switched it to
> ext2 (as, in theory, ext2 should be faster as has no journaling) and
> 2048 as blocksize (that, of course, shrinks portage tree sizes but I am
> unsure about its effects from a performance point of view)

You are aware of the various reiserfs mount options, including notail and 
nolog, right?  See the mount manpage.  reiserfs was tuned for small 
files, but these may speed it up even further.

Other than that, much as I could suggest all sorts of stuff (like 
PORTAGE_TMPDIR as tmpfs, will probably make more of a difference if you 
have a decent amount of memory), I'll point you to the user forums and 
list as more appropriate.  This list is really for discussion of portage 
and portage related development, not so much user portage speed tips, but 
ask in the user list and forums and you'll surely get all sorts of info! 
=:^)

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: Recommendation about faster (not smaller) filesystem and blocksize combination for portage tree

[Pacho Ramos]

El lun, 30-03-2009 a las 16:30 +0000, Duncan escribió:
> Pacho Ramos <pacho@condmat1.ciencias.uniovi.es> posted
> 1238412618.18113.15.camel@localhost, excerpted below, on  Mon, 30 Mar 2009
> 13:30:18 +0200:
> 
> > I am trying to know what filesystem+blocksize combination could be
> > better for the kind of files stored in portage tree.
> > 
> > In the past, I have been using reiserfs for my / partition and I had
> > /usr/portage under it. Later, I moved /usr/portage to a different
> > partition (distfiles go to a different directory) and switched it to
> > ext2 (as, in theory, ext2 should be faster as has no journaling) and
> > 2048 as blocksize (that, of course, shrinks portage tree sizes but I am
> > unsure about its effects from a performance point of view)
> 
> You are aware of the various reiserfs mount options, including notail and 
> nolog, right?  See the mount manpage.  reiserfs was tuned for small 
> files, but these may speed it up even further.
> 
> Other than that, much as I could suggest all sorts of stuff (like 
> PORTAGE_TMPDIR as tmpfs, will probably make more of a difference if you 
> have a decent amount of memory), I'll point you to the user forums and 
> list as more appropriate.  This list is really for discussion of portage 
> and portage related development, not so much user portage speed tips, but 
> ask in the user list and forums and you'll surely get all sorts of info! 
> =:^)
> 

Thanks, finally seems that, in my case, reiserfs with nolog,noatime
works really fast and with a smaller size (thanks to "tail") :-D

Best regards!

[gentoo-portage-dev] Re: Recommendation about faster (not smaller) filesystem and blocksize combination for portage tree

[Duncan]

Pacho Ramos <pacho@condmat1.ciencias.uniovi.es> posted
1239914420.18698.0.camel@localhost, excerpted below, on  Thu, 16 Apr 2009
22:40:20 +0200:

> Thanks, finally seems that, in my case, reiserfs with nolog,noatime
> works really fast and with a smaller size (thanks to "tail") :-D

=:^)

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman