BRIAN PAUL KROTH wrote: >> well, my experiences with distcc has not been quite nice, some of the >> >> packages does not behave well with distributed compiling... or what >> did >> you mean with buildsystem? and searching from portage over nfs is much >> >> slower than searching local portage tree... >> > > As someone else said esearch, eix are very nice tools that work best for > searching even when you have a local portage tree. > > What I actually meant by build system is to only build packages on one > machine and let your other hosts use those binary packages rather than trying > to build and compile everywhere. If you want you can use distcc on top of > that but it's not necessary. This was more so in relation to your home > networking proposal. It results in a single build environment so all of your > machines that use those packages behave the same and there's only one machine > doing portage tree syncing which means less disk trashing and (external) > network traffic. In my experience it ends up performing much better and > being easier to manage. Then you can dedicate your other machines to their > actual purposes rather than trying to fix build problems in many different > places. > > As to your original question, again, it depends on what you're doing. RAID0 > is best for fast writes in which you don't care about reliability - basically > scratch space. Something like portage might be suited for this. Then again, > the portage tree is really meant as a local cache of the master tree. As > such its supposed to be read from more often than written to. RAID1 provides > reliability and read performance since you can read from one of several disks > to achieve the same results. Write performance for RAID1 is obviously not as > good, but how often are you really writing to /opt or /usr for instance. If > you're going software raid, both of these come almost free in terms of > overhead involved. With higher levels you'll definitely want true hardware > level raid, not some cheap BIOS implemented version. I'd previously read, > and can't find the document just now, that RAID10 offers the combination of > both of these and the best performance (better than RAID5 as well). Thou > gh that may be out of the question in terms of the number of disks involved. > > Here's what I've done in the past for client machines... > > Partition1 RAID1 15G / > Partition2 1xRAM/disk swap (it should automatically be striped) > Partition3 RAID0 5G /tmp (you may want more if you're doing video editing or > something like that) > Partition4 (extended) > Partition5 RAID1 5G /var (you may want more if you're building packages or > something) > Partition6 RAID1 * /home (the rest of it) > > Also, if you want to be able to tweak your partition sizes, LVM offers > striping and mirroring so you don't need to layer software raid on top of or > underneath that as well. > > Hope that helps, > Brian > well, all of this has been really helpfull. my current plans for my desktop-pc:
MOUNT PSIZE MSIZE FSTYPE BLOCKS RAIDLEVEL / 5G 5G xfs 4096 1 /home * * xfs 4096 1 /var 5G 5G xfs 4096 1 /usr 6G 6G xfs 4096 1 /usr/portage 500 1G reiser 2048 0 /usr/portage/distfiles 500 1G xfs 4096 0 /tmp 2G 4G reiser 4096 0 im just not so sure about the filesystem choices... -- [email protected] mailing list
