El sáb, 31-03-2012 a las 02:35 -0700, Brian Harring escribió: > On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 08:44:02AM +0000, Sven Vermeulen wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 10:06:18AM +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote: > > > Looks then that there are several alternatives for portage tree, then, > > > maybe the option would be to add a note to Gentoo Handbook explaining > > > the cons of having portage tree on a standard partition and, then, put a > > > link to a wiki page (for example) where all this alternatives are > > > explained. > > > > > > What do you think about this approach? > > > > I don't like the "cons" approach, as it gives the impression that users are > > pushed into a negative solution, whereas the current situation works just > > fine for almost all users. The approach for a different partition is for > > performance reasons (which most users don't have any negative feelings > > about) and as such might be read as a "ricer" approach. > > For modern hardware w/ a modern kernel (or at least >=2.6.38 for the > dcache resolution optimizations)... does anyone actually have real > performance stats for this? > > If the notion is a seperate FS, one tailored to the portage tree's > usage models (tail packing for example), sure, grok that although I > question how much people really are getting out of it. > > In the past, situation definitely differed- I'm just wondering if the > gain is actually worth debating it, rather than just ignoring it (or > sticking it in a foot note for people trying to use durons). > ~harring > >
I did performance stats one year ago or so, but I don't have time to redo all of them to simply confirm how behave now with recent kernel (in that time, I checked reiserfs, ext2 with multiple block sizes). Regarding disk space usage, it's still valid today for sure
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
