public inbox for gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [gentoo-portage-dev] Recommendation about faster (not smaller) filesystem and blocksize combination for portage tree
@ 2009-03-30 11:30 Pacho Ramos
  2009-03-30 16:30 ` [gentoo-portage-dev] " Duncan
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Pacho Ramos @ 2009-03-30 11:30 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-portage-dev

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 :-)





^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2009-04-17  7:32 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2009-03-30 11:30 [gentoo-portage-dev] Recommendation about faster (not smaller) filesystem and blocksize combination for portage tree Pacho Ramos
2009-03-30 16:30 ` [gentoo-portage-dev] " Duncan
2009-04-16 20:40   ` Pacho Ramos
2009-04-17  7:32     ` Duncan

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox