[gentoo-user] which filesystem is more suitable for /var/tmp/portage?

[gentoo-user] which filesystem is more suitable for /var/tmp/portage?

[东方巽雷]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 24 bytes --]

ext4?btrfs or reiserfs?

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 45 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] which filesystem is more suitable for /var/tmp/portage?

[Ralf Ramsauer]

I usually prefer tmpfs.

But if you don't want to use tmpfs, i would advise you to use ext4.
In my opinion, reiser is a bit outdated and btrfs is still under heavy
development.

Regards,

--
Ralf
On 09/18/13 14:34, 东方巽雷 wrote:
> ext4?btrfs or reiserfs?

Re: [gentoo-user] which filesystem is more suitable for /var/tmp/portage?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 310 bytes --]

On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 20:34:12 +0800, 东方巽雷 wrote:

> ext4?btrfs or reiserfs?

tmpfs is you have the RAM. Otherwise ext2 would be a good bet, you don't
need journalling or large file support for compilation.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

I'll never forget the 1st time I ran Windows, but I'm trying...

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] which filesystem is more suitable for /var/tmp/portage?

[Peter Humphrey]

On Wednesday 18 Sep 2013 14:52:30 Ralf Ramsauer wrote:

> In my opinion, reiser is a bit outdated ...

What is the significance of its date? I use reiserfs on my Atom box for /var, 
/var/cache/squid and /usr/portage, and on my workstation for /usr/portage  and 
/home/prh/.VirtualBox. It's never given me any trouble at all.

Perhaps you meant that, say, ext4 has better all-round performance?

-- 
Regards,
Peter

Re: [gentoo-user] which filesystem is more suitable for /var/tmp/portage?

[Ralf Ramsauer]

On 09/18/13 16:05, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 Sep 2013 14:52:30 Ralf Ramsauer wrote:
>
>> In my opinion, reiser is a bit outdated ...
> What is the significance of its date? I use reiserfs on my Atom box for /var, 
> /var/cache/squid and /usr/portage, and on my workstation for /usr/portage  and 
> /home/prh/.VirtualBox. It's never given me any trouble at all.
Outdated doesn't generally imply trouble.
>
> Perhaps you meant that, say, ext4 has better all-round performance?
Ok, let's call it better all-round performance :-)

Regards,

--
Ralf

Re: [gentoo-user] which filesystem is more suitable for /var/tmp/portage?

[Alan McKinnon]

On 18/09/2013 16:05, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 Sep 2013 14:52:30 Ralf Ramsauer wrote:
> 
>> In my opinion, reiser is a bit outdated ...
> 
> What is the significance of its date? I use reiserfs on my Atom box for /var, 
> /var/cache/squid and /usr/portage, and on my workstation for /usr/portage  and 
> /home/prh/.VirtualBox. It's never given me any trouble at all.


Sooner or later, reiser is going to bitrot. The ReiserFS code itself
will not change, but everything around it and what it plugs into will
change. When that happens (not if - when), there is no-one to fix the
bug and you will find yourself up the creek sans paddle

An FS is not like a widget set, you can't really live with and
workaround any defects that develop. When an FS needs patching, it needs
patching, no ifs and buts. Reiser may nominally have a maintainer but in
real terms there is effectively no-one

Circumstances have caused ReiserFS to become a high-risk scenario and
even though it might perform faultlessly right now, continued use should
be evaluated in terms of that very real risk.

> Perhaps you meant that, say, ext4 has better all-round performance?



-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] which filesystem is more suitable for /var/tmp/portage?

[Peter Humphrey]

On Wednesday 18 Sep 2013 17:09:37 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 18/09/2013 16:05, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > On Wednesday 18 Sep 2013 14:52:30 Ralf Ramsauer wrote:
> >> In my opinion, reiser is a bit outdated ...
> > 
> > What is the significance of its date? I use reiserfs on my Atom box for
> > /var, /var/cache/squid and /usr/portage, and on my workstation for
> > /usr/portage  and /home/prh/.VirtualBox. It's never given me any trouble
> > at all.

--->8

> Circumstances have caused ReiserFS to become a high-risk scenario and
> even though it might perform faultlessly right now, continued use should
> be evaluated in terms of that very real risk.

Sensible advice - thanks. I'll bear it in mind as I continue working on these 
boxes.

-- 
Regards,
Peter

Re: [gentoo-user] which filesystem is more suitable for /var/tmp/portage?

[Kerin Millar]

On 18/09/2013 16:09, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 18/09/2013 16:05, Peter Humphrey wrote:
>> On Wednesday 18 Sep 2013 14:52:30 Ralf Ramsauer wrote:
>>
>>> In my opinion, reiser is a bit outdated ...
>>
>> What is the significance of its date? I use reiserfs on my Atom box for /var,
>> /var/cache/squid and /usr/portage, and on my workstation for /usr/portage  and
>> /home/prh/.VirtualBox. It's never given me any trouble at all.
>
>
> Sooner or later, reiser is going to bitrot. The ReiserFS code itself
> will not change, but everything around it and what it plugs into will
> change. When that happens (not if - when), there is no-one to fix the
> bug and you will find yourself up the creek sans paddle
>
> An FS is not like a widget set, you can't really live with and
> workaround any defects that develop. When an FS needs patching, it needs
> patching, no ifs and buts. Reiser may nominally have a maintainer but in
> real terms there is effectively no-one
>
> Circumstances have caused ReiserFS to become a high-risk scenario and
> even though it might perform faultlessly right now, continued use should
> be evaluated in terms of that very real risk.

Another problem with ReiserFS is its intrinsic dependency on the BKL 
(big kernel lock). Aside from hampering scalability, it necessitated 
compromise when the time came to eliminate the BKL:

https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=8ebc423

Note the performance loss introduced by the patch; whether that was 
addressed I do not know.

In my view, ReiserFS is only useful for saving space through tail 
packing. Unfortunately, tail packing makes it slower still (an issue 
that was supposed to be resolved for good in Reiser4).

In general, I would recommend ext4 or xfs as the go-to filesystems these 
days.

--Kerin

Re: [gentoo-user] which filesystem is more suitable for /var/tmp/portage?

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

Am 03.10.2013 11:55, schrieb Kerin Millar:
> On 18/09/2013 16:09, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> On 18/09/2013 16:05, Peter Humphrey wrote:
>>> On Wednesday 18 Sep 2013 14:52:30 Ralf Ramsauer wrote:
>>>
>>>> In my opinion, reiser is a bit outdated ...
>>>
>>> What is the significance of its date? I use reiserfs on my Atom box
>>> for /var,
>>> /var/cache/squid and /usr/portage, and on my workstation for
>>> /usr/portage  and
>>> /home/prh/.VirtualBox. It's never given me any trouble at all.
>>
>>
>> Sooner or later, reiser is going to bitrot. The ReiserFS code itself
>> will not change, but everything around it and what it plugs into will
>> change. When that happens (not if - when), there is no-one to fix the
>> bug and you will find yourself up the creek sans paddle
>>
>> An FS is not like a widget set, you can't really live with and
>> workaround any defects that develop. When an FS needs patching, it needs
>> patching, no ifs and buts. Reiser may nominally have a maintainer but in
>> real terms there is effectively no-one
>>
>> Circumstances have caused ReiserFS to become a high-risk scenario and
>> even though it might perform faultlessly right now, continued use should
>> be evaluated in terms of that very real risk.
>
> Another problem with ReiserFS is its intrinsic dependency on the BKL
> (big kernel lock). Aside from hampering scalability, it necessitated
> compromise when the time came to eliminate the BKL:

and that one was solved when - 4-5 years ago?

>
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=8ebc423
>
>
> Note the performance loss introduced by the patch; whether that was
> addressed I do not know.
>
> In my view, ReiserFS is only useful for saving space through tail
> packing. Unfortunately, tail packing makes it slower still (an issue
> that was supposed to be resolved for good in Reiser4).
>

why don't you mention that reiserfs used barriers by default - and ext3
did not. Just to look good at 'using defaults benchmarks' (like
phoronix)? I mean, if we are digging around in history.... and btrfs is
still broken in my regards...

tmpfs is the filesystem of choice for /tmp or /var/tmp/portage.

Re: [gentoo-user] which filesystem is more suitable for /var/tmp/portage?

[Peter Humphrey]

On Thursday 03 Oct 2013 10:55:12 Kerin Millar wrote:

> In my view, ReiserFS is only useful for saving space through tail
> packing. Unfortunately, tail packing makes it slower still (an issue
> that was supposed to be resolved for good in Reiser4).

If I remember aright, I started using ReiserFS before ext4 was released. It 
seemed at the time to offer better performance than ext3 for many small files 
(portage tree) and for large ones (source files), so I used it for those 
purposes. If those advantages have now disappeared, it looks like time to 
switch to ext4 for everything other than /boot, which is still ext2 here.

> In general, I would recommend ext4 or xfs as the go-to filesystems these
> days.

Thanks for your comments, Kerin. And others who contributed too.

-- 
Regards,
Peter

Re: [gentoo-user] which filesystem is more suitable for /var/tmp/portage?

[Pandu Poluan]

On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Kerin Millar <kerframil@fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
> On 18/09/2013 16:09, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>
>> On 18/09/2013 16:05, Peter Humphrey wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wednesday 18 Sep 2013 14:52:30 Ralf Ramsauer wrote:
>>>
>>>> In my opinion, reiser is a bit outdated ...
>>>
>>>
>>> What is the significance of its date? I use reiserfs on my Atom box for
>>> /var,
>>> /var/cache/squid and /usr/portage, and on my workstation for /usr/portage
>>> and
>>> /home/prh/.VirtualBox. It's never given me any trouble at all.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sooner or later, reiser is going to bitrot. The ReiserFS code itself
>> will not change, but everything around it and what it plugs into will
>> change. When that happens (not if - when), there is no-one to fix the
>> bug and you will find yourself up the creek sans paddle
>>
>> An FS is not like a widget set, you can't really live with and
>> workaround any defects that develop. When an FS needs patching, it needs
>> patching, no ifs and buts. Reiser may nominally have a maintainer but in
>> real terms there is effectively no-one
>>
>> Circumstances have caused ReiserFS to become a high-risk scenario and
>> even though it might perform faultlessly right now, continued use should
>> be evaluated in terms of that very real risk.
>
>
> Another problem with ReiserFS is its intrinsic dependency on the BKL (big
> kernel lock). Aside from hampering scalability, it necessitated compromise
> when the time came to eliminate the BKL:
>
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=8ebc423
>
> Note the performance loss introduced by the patch; whether that was
> addressed I do not know.
>
> In my view, ReiserFS is only useful for saving space through tail packing.
> Unfortunately, tail packing makes it slower still (an issue that was
> supposed to be resolved for good in Reiser4).
>
> In general, I would recommend ext4 or xfs as the go-to filesystems these
> days.
>
> --Kerin
>

XFS is honestly looking mighty good if your host has 8 cores or more:

http://lwn.net/Articles/476263/

If data corruption is *totally* not acceptable, and if you have more
than one disks of similar sizes, ZFS might even be more suitable.

Rgds,
-- 
FdS Pandu E Poluan
~ IT Optimizer ~

 • LOPSA Member #15248
 • Blog : http://pepoluan.tumblr.com
 • Linked-In : http://id.linkedin.com/in/pepoluan

Re: [gentoo-user] which filesystem is more suitable for /var/tmp/portage?

[Kerin Millar]

On 03/10/2013 13:08, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> Am 03.10.2013 11:55, schrieb Kerin Millar:
>> On 18/09/2013 16:09, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>> On 18/09/2013 16:05, Peter Humphrey wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday 18 Sep 2013 14:52:30 Ralf Ramsauer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In my opinion, reiser is a bit outdated ...
>>>>
>>>> What is the significance of its date? I use reiserfs on my Atom box
>>>> for /var,
>>>> /var/cache/squid and /usr/portage, and on my workstation for
>>>> /usr/portage  and
>>>> /home/prh/.VirtualBox. It's never given me any trouble at all.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sooner or later, reiser is going to bitrot. The ReiserFS code itself
>>> will not change, but everything around it and what it plugs into will
>>> change. When that happens (not if - when), there is no-one to fix the
>>> bug and you will find yourself up the creek sans paddle
>>>
>>> An FS is not like a widget set, you can't really live with and
>>> workaround any defects that develop. When an FS needs patching, it needs
>>> patching, no ifs and buts. Reiser may nominally have a maintainer but in
>>> real terms there is effectively no-one
>>>
>>> Circumstances have caused ReiserFS to become a high-risk scenario and
>>> even though it might perform faultlessly right now, continued use should
>>> be evaluated in terms of that very real risk.
>>
>> Another problem with ReiserFS is its intrinsic dependency on the BKL
>> (big kernel lock). Aside from hampering scalability, it necessitated
>> compromise when the time came to eliminate the BKL:
>
> and that one was solved when - 4-5 years ago?

Consider the manner in which the hard requirement on the BKL was 
removed, then objectively argue that its "deep use of the specific 
properties of the BKL" did not necessitate what would quite reasonably 
be described as a compromise.

>
>>
>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=8ebc423
>>
>>
>> Note the performance loss introduced by the patch; whether that was
>> addressed I do not know.
>>
>> In my view, ReiserFS is only useful for saving space through tail
>> packing. Unfortunately, tail packing makes it slower still (an issue
>> that was supposed to be resolved for good in Reiser4).
>>
>
> why don't you mention that reiserfs used barriers by default - and ext3
> did not. Just to look good at 'using defaults benchmarks' (like
> phoronix)? I mean, if we are digging around in history.... and btrfs is
> still broken in my regards...

Because none of this passive aggressive rhetoric would have had any 
meaningful context within the content of my previous post.

>
> tmpfs is the filesystem of choice for /tmp or /var/tmp/portage.

--Kerin

Re: [gentoo-user] which filesystem is more suitable for /var/tmp/portage?

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

Am 03.10.2013 18:32, schrieb Kerin Millar:
> On 03/10/2013 13:08, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>> Am 03.10.2013 11:55, schrieb Kerin Millar:
>>> On 18/09/2013 16:09, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>>> On 18/09/2013 16:05, Peter Humphrey wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday 18 Sep 2013 14:52:30 Ralf Ramsauer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In my opinion, reiser is a bit outdated ...
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the significance of its date? I use reiserfs on my Atom box
>>>>> for /var,
>>>>> /var/cache/squid and /usr/portage, and on my workstation for
>>>>> /usr/portage  and
>>>>> /home/prh/.VirtualBox. It's never given me any trouble at all.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sooner or later, reiser is going to bitrot. The ReiserFS code itself
>>>> will not change, but everything around it and what it plugs into will
>>>> change. When that happens (not if - when), there is no-one to fix the
>>>> bug and you will find yourself up the creek sans paddle
>>>>
>>>> An FS is not like a widget set, you can't really live with and
>>>> workaround any defects that develop. When an FS needs patching, it
>>>> needs
>>>> patching, no ifs and buts. Reiser may nominally have a maintainer
>>>> but in
>>>> real terms there is effectively no-one
>>>>
>>>> Circumstances have caused ReiserFS to become a high-risk scenario and
>>>> even though it might perform faultlessly right now, continued use
>>>> should
>>>> be evaluated in terms of that very real risk.
>>>
>>> Another problem with ReiserFS is its intrinsic dependency on the BKL
>>> (big kernel lock). Aside from hampering scalability, it necessitated
>>> compromise when the time came to eliminate the BKL:
>>
>> and that one was solved when - 4-5 years ago?
>
> Consider the manner in which the hard requirement on the BKL was
> removed, then objectively argue that its "deep use of the specific
> properties of the BKL" did not necessitate what would quite reasonably
> be described as a compromise.
>
>>
>>>
>>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=8ebc423
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Note the performance loss introduced by the patch; whether that was
>>> addressed I do not know.
>>>
>>> In my view, ReiserFS is only useful for saving space through tail
>>> packing. Unfortunately, tail packing makes it slower still (an issue
>>> that was supposed to be resolved for good in Reiser4).
>>>
>>
>> why don't you mention that reiserfs used barriers by default - and ext3
>> did not. Just to look good at 'using defaults benchmarks' (like
>> phoronix)? I mean, if we are digging around in history.... and btrfs is
>> still broken in my regards...
>
> Because none of this passive aggressive rhetoric would have had any
> meaningful context within the content of my previous post.

while your message had no meaningful context within this thread at all.

Oh look, there was a data eating bug in XFS X years ago. Or oh look,
some very heavy patching was done in ext4 over the time....

are just as meaning- and helpful as your message:

not at all.