Am 10.03.2012 14:30, schrieb Alex Schuster: > Hi there! > > Is there an advantage in putting the portage tree on an extra partition? >
Yes. It allows you to use a smaller and more appropriate block size like 1k or 2k which decreases internal fragmentation. It also increases locality of data, meaning that you won't scatter your files all over your 2TB hard disk. Ext* and co. have mechanisms to prevent this but it still helps to enforce it. > Currently, I'm using reiserfs, because I read that it is efficient when > using many small files. On the other hand I also heard that it tends to > get slower with every emerge --sync. > Yes, that's a problem of every file system. Reiserfs (especially without notail) and btrfs are more prone to this due to their internal organization. > Space is no longer an argument in these days, at least for my desktop > machine. But I would like to optimize for speed -- emerge -DputnVj > @world takes quite a while to calculate, I assume this is because so many > ebuild files have to be accessed. > Not just ebuilds. You also have to consider /var/cache/edb and /var/db/pkg. Be careful with the latter one. You don't want to loose its content. > Any tips on this? Does it make sense to use a special file system just > for the portage tree? What would be best? Would it help to re-create this > file system from time to time in case it gets slower with every sync? Or > wouldn't I notice a difference if I just used a big ext4 partition for > all portage related stuff? > > Anyone using a compressed RAM file system for that? :) > > Wonko > Recreating it certainly helps. I don't find it worth the effort. though. Regards, Florian Philipp
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
