[Shoot, found this in my Drafts folder -- basically I second the Reiserfs suggestions]
On Sun, 6 Jul 2008, Stefan de Konink wrote: > Hello, > > > Currently I see that the usage of /var/tmp/db exceeds 3 times the > apparentsize of the filesystem (XFS), on another filesystem with EXT3 > had a number between 2 and 3. For /usr/portage this number is 1.5. Now > it seems obvious that one wants to do something about this situation. > > It is clear for me that non-filesystem based storage for small files, > hence databases could potentially be more appropriate, maybe alternative > filesystems could work out. Before I have stored my /usr/portage in > squashfs and just distributed new files each time I did an update. > Currently I'm using the filesystem again, but provide all host > /usr/portage by NFS. > > > Are there any other alternatives for daily use with respect to > /var/pkg/db and /usr/portage? I found a huge benefit space- and performance-wise with reiserfs. /var/db/pkg is at 1.47 and /usr/portage at 1.55. But, it's a helluva lot faster than when I was using EXT3 for both, and a less-impressive improvement from XFS (if I recall correctly). But, I also found the performance boost a far more compelling reason to switch than the space gain. I'm using a 4 year old laptop, and even on this thing, I've got 100GB of hard drive capacity. 252MB for /usr/portage and 99MB for /var/db/pkg are pretty piddly, and the ~130MB over "optimal" filesystem storage (disregarding potential gains from compression) is a tiny price to pay. Best, Ben _______________________________________________ paludis-user mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pioto.org/mailman/listinfo/paludis-user
