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

[Pacho Ramos <pacho@condmat1.ciencias.uniovi.es>]

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!