From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4E091381F3 for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 12:08:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9FA49E0996; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 12:08:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-bk0-f41.google.com (mail-bk0-f41.google.com [209.85.214.41]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 82526E07FD for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 12:08:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-bk0-f41.google.com with SMTP id na10so882741bkb.14 for ; Thu, 03 Oct 2013 05:08:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=AbhKilA5LboLf3r08m+mLscFndpHGRNLHmJ+SpanxkY=; b=QLB9foC49EPtM1U8YtIxxVTnG9knM6XjwbL4d2qeqPGM2E+SM9nniksCezAWbJqGHb 7BChTH4D9tln/pSxZ4e183It8/sJO8zFVeALbEbU0VLK/1hgklY4Zfc1TYBZNDm0qbSN j37d/ykfRkon7Hvr1FjNW78nR8TGqChmKHbOnwRrOh7ThB6dNho7GBEK0bZdNkFnIwJ7 GvfBt3SkoW05JQy69NWUF5r2PAt5GqlrD8jxorw/hOe1hsWxWbbc9iTTi0K6GzDCfv0W XMsrtzAsBU6Ed1yQihuLPfG5g1RaMnLooZUUV+eI1wLTaxVQeQ/Y3v4Y6XiKa6qrj9Tc LB+g== X-Received: by 10.204.234.8 with SMTP id ka8mr7108567bkb.5.1380802109994; Thu, 03 Oct 2013 05:08:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.21] (p3E9E6EE7.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [62.158.110.231]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id z6sm4520056bkn.8.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 03 Oct 2013 05:08:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <524D5E3C.6050809@googlemail.com> Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 14:08:28 +0200 From: Volker Armin Hemmann User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] which filesystem is more suitable for /var/tmp/portage? References: <5239A20E.7090102@ramses-pyramidenbau.de> <4083700.7YOtJyrB1G@wstn> <5239C231.9080702@gmail.com> <524D3F00.9090901@fastmail.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <524D3F00.9090901@fastmail.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: bfdf56cb-e7b3-49a7-8b0c-6eb87e661609 X-Archives-Hash: 6b2a1c07bb8a6d407f316991ac83ce78 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.