El lun, 30-03-2009 a las 16:30 +0000, Duncan escribió: > Pacho Ramos <[email protected]> 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! > =:^) >
Thanks, finally seems that, in my case, reiserfs with nolog,noatime works really fast and with a smaller size (thanks to "tail") :-D Best regards!
