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 1LuaMA-0007NN-FC for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 22:46:54 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B268AE06F4; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 22:46:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lnldap2.comunired.com (unknown [217.130.24.204]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D437E06F4 for ; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 22:46:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 4111 invoked by uid 7007); 16 Apr 2009 20:40:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO [192.168.1.201]) (IX1V7746758@iservicesmail.com@[89.7.232.84]) (envelope-sender ) by 0 (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 16 Apr 2009 20:40:10 -0000 Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: Recommendation about faster (not smaller) filesystem and blocksize combination for portage tree From: Pacho Ramos To: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: References: <1238412618.18113.15.camel@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Organization: pacho@condmat1.ciencias.uniovi.es Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 22:40:20 +0200 Message-Id: <1239914420.18698.0.camel@localhost> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 189e3063-35b7-4e09-92c7-3445fe848904 X-Archives-Hash: 017578810dbd271ac9d618552f0cc714 El lun, 30-03-2009 a las 16:30 +0000, Duncan escribi=C3=B3: > Pacho Ramos posted > 1238412618.18113.15.camel@localhost, excerpted below, on Mon, 30 Mar 2= 009 > 13:30:18 +0200: >=20 > > I am trying to know what filesystem+blocksize combination could be > > better for the kind of files stored in portage tree. > >=20 > > 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) >=20 > You are aware of the various reiserfs mount options, including notail a= nd=20 > nolog, right? See the mount manpage. reiserfs was tuned for small=20 > files, but these may speed it up even further. >=20 > Other than that, much as I could suggest all sorts of stuff (like=20 > PORTAGE_TMPDIR as tmpfs, will probably make more of a difference if you= =20 > have a decent amount of memory), I'll point you to the user forums and=20 > list as more appropriate. This list is really for discussion of portag= e=20 > and portage related development, not so much user portage speed tips, b= ut=20 > ask in the user list and forums and you'll surely get all sorts of info= !=20 > =3D:^) >=20 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!