On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 12:52:55 +0100, Alex Schuster wrote: > > The data I've seen indicates that ext2 is fastest, that's what I > > use. > > I thought the small files of the portage tree especially profit from > the notail option in reiserfs?
They benefit compared with using reiser with tail-packing. > Did you change the block size? I had to change both the block size and blocks per inode, otherwise I would run out of inodes on a 1GB filesystem. You have to admire the user-friendliness of ext! > > There's no need for journalling on the portage tree, it's small enough > > to fsck quickly and if it does get broken, reformat and resync. > > Would the journaling overhead be noticeable? > I also had used ext2 for my portage tree first, then I read somewhere > that reiserfs would be the best. BTW, I have distfiles and pkgdir > somewhere else, if not the fsck would not be so fast. It's certainly noticeable compared with ext3. Many benchmarks do show ext2 to be the fastest filesystem, probably because of the lack of journalling overhead. Like you, I have $DISTDIR and $PKGDIR elsewhere, those files really should not be mixed in with the portage tree. > Just for fun, I just copied my $PORTDIR into my tmpfs, emerge -DpN > @system @world takes between 81 and 53 seconds. With reiserfs, I get > 130 seconds first ($PORTDIR was unmounted first and mounted again to > clear the caches), and 57 seconds in the second attempt. > > I had expected that tmpfs would be even faster. I think I just keep it > the way it is now. The exact same thought occurred to me. With a local tree to sync from, tmpfs seemed a good choice (you could sync it from /etc/conf.d/local) but it seems like it is not worth bothering with. I'll try a reiser3 filesystem without tail packing to see if it beats ext2. -- Neil Bothwick Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
