Pacho Ramos <pa...@condmat1.ciencias.uniovi.es> posted 1238412618.18113.15.ca...@localhost, excerpted below, on Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:30:18 +0200:
> I am trying to know what filesystem+blocksize combination could be > better for the kind of files stored in portage tree. > > In the past, I have been using reiserfs for my / partition and I had > /usr/portage under it. Later, I moved /usr/portage to a different > partition (distfiles go to a different directory) and switched it to > ext2 (as, in theory, ext2 should be faster as has no journaling) and > 2048 as blocksize (that, of course, shrinks portage tree sizes but I am > unsure about its effects from a performance point of view) You are aware of the various reiserfs mount options, including notail and nolog, right? See the mount manpage. reiserfs was tuned for small files, but these may speed it up even further. Other than that, much as I could suggest all sorts of stuff (like PORTAGE_TMPDIR as tmpfs, will probably make more of a difference if you have a decent amount of memory), I'll point you to the user forums and list as more appropriate. This list is really for discussion of portage and portage related development, not so much user portage speed tips, but ask in the user list and forums and you'll surely get all sorts of info! =:^) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
