From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1Hm4Wn-0004W3-5X for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 10 May 2007 09:01:37 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l4A8xFEA000959; Thu, 10 May 2007 08:59:16 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l4A8m6wV015716 for ; Thu, 10 May 2007 08:48:06 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F95464FB2 for ; Thu, 10 May 2007 08:48:05 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -0.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.299 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.299] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GnsuvNzHcOgF for ; Thu, 10 May 2007 08:48:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B250364EFA for ; Thu, 10 May 2007 08:48:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Hm4HZ-0001kF-TH for gentoo-user@gentoo.org; Thu, 10 May 2007 10:45:54 +0200 Received: from zy-rieter.cyberlink.ch ([212.55.215.153]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 10 May 2007 10:45:53 +0200 Received: from listen by zy-rieter.cyberlink.ch with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 10 May 2007 10:45:53 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org From: Alexander Skwar Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: Separate /usr Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 10:41:04 +0200 Organization: n/a Message-ID: <3103632.vvIsoWeEWl@kn.gn.rtr.message-center.info> References: <49bf44f10705081656s776f28f5kbe497a5326107c2f@mail.gmail.com> <200705091549.45764.bulliver@badcomputer.org> <20070510000608.319c2326@hactar.digimed.co.uk> <200705100931.42813.alan@linuxholdings.co.za> <20070510092445.16cfc9b1@krikkit.digimed.co.uk> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: zy-rieter.cyberlink.ch User-Agent: KNode/0.10.4 Sender: news X-Archives-Salt: 4d226731-f745-47e9-9a82-52c61ace75bb X-Archives-Hash: 9317fc9ae55396470c2b7c23043beae7 Neil Bothwick wrote: > Hello Alan McKinnon, > >> I never understood why portage on a sparse file is beneficial. Mine is >> on a small reiser logival volume mounted with option "tail". It's just >> big enough to hold portage with 10-15% free space (the tree doesn't >> expand that much over time). > > It is faster. Hm. I don't understand. Why is portage in a sparse file of, let's say, 400m, with reiserfs and notail mounted, faster, then a real partition of 400m with reiserfs and notail? What makes the sparse file faster? Alexander Skwar -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list