Re: [gentoo-user] LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[John Blinka]

-- Sent from my Palm Pre
On Mar 10, 2012 10:38 AM, Neil Bothwick  wrote: 

On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 11:58:18 +0100, pk wrote:



> Btw, does anyone know which version of udev requires access to /usr? I'm

> running latest stable here 171-r5 and I have separate partitions for

> /home /opt /usr /usr/local /tmp /var, all on LVM and /boot on a separate

> partition outside of LVM, and it works fine.



I'm using the latest testing with a separate /usr and no problems.





-- 

Neil Bothwick



WinErr 014: Keyboard locked - Try anything you can think of.

Re: [gentoo-user] LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 2:50 PM, pk  wrote:
> On 2012-03-10 16:35, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>
>> I'm using the latest testing with a separate /usr and no problems.
>
> So udev-181 (masked) is ok to use without initrd and separate /usr
> then? Thanks for the info!

Just posted to -devel, the news item regarding the unmasking of udev-181:

"This news item is to inform you that once you upgrade to a version of
udev >=181, if you have /usr on a separate partition, you must boot your
system with an initramfs which pre-mounts /usr.

"An initramfs which does this is created by >=sys-kernel/genkernel-3.4.25 or
>=sys-kernel/dracut-017-r1. If you do not want to use these tools, be
sure any initramfs you create pre-mounts /usr.

"Also, if you are using OpenRC, you must upgrade to >= openrc-0.9.9.

For more information on why this has been done, see the following url:
http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken";

The news item is being discussed, but something similar will be
submitted as news item for every Gentoo user.

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Re: [gentoo-user] LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Neil Bothwick]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 21:50:02 +0100, pk wrote:

> > I'm using the latest testing with a separate /usr and no problems.  
> 
> So udev-181 (masked) is ok to use without initrd and separate /usr
> then? Thanks for the info!

testing, not masked. Although it turns out that the latest in ~amd64 is
the same as you are running on stable. 181 is masked and the comments in
package.mask imply it is because of the separate /usr problem.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

No trees were harmed in the sending of this message. However, a large
number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-user] LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Dale]

Todd Goodman wrote:
> * Dale  [120309 21:55]:
>> Howdy,
>>
> [..]
>> [0.787822] Trying to unpack rootfs image as initramfs...
> 
> It found your initramfs...
> 
>> [0.867787] Freeing initrd memory: 5084k freed
> 
> The followng look like they're from your Dracut initramfs
> 
>> [0.880111] audit: initializing netlink socket (disabled)
>> [0.880439] type=2000 audit(1331081750.879:1): initialized
>> [0.912626] fuse init (API version 7.17)
>> [1.258561] ehci_hcd :00:12.2: init command 0010005 (park)=0
>> ithresh=1 period=512 RUN
>> [1.270152] ehci_hcd :00:13.2: init command 0010005 (park)=0
>> ithresh=1 period=512 RUN
>> [1.583458] device-mapper: ioctl: 4.22.0-ioctl (2011-10-19)
>> initialised: dm-de...@redhat.com
> 
> The following here certainly are
> 
>> [4.258421] init-early.sh used greatest stack depth: 3696 bytes left
>> [4.503735] init.sh used greatest stack depth: 3576 bytes left
> 
> And the following are confirmation
> 
>> root@fireball / # dmesg | grep dracut
>> [3.018189] dracut: Checking reiserfs: /dev/sda3
>> [3.018531] dracut: issuing reiserfsck -a  /dev/sda3
>> [3.033879] dracut: Reiserfs super block in block 16 on 0x803 of
>> format 3.6 with standard journal
>> [3.034463] dracut: Blocks (total/free): 4883760/2502678 by 4096 bytes
>> [3.034781] dracut: Filesystem is clean
>> [3.035210] dracut: Remounting /dev/sda3 with -o ro
>> [3.082413] dracut: Mounted root filesystem /dev/sda3
>> [3.158322] dracut: Switching root
>> root@fireball / #
>>
>> And grub looks like this:
>>
>> title=Initramfs-new_kernel
>> root (hd0,0)
>> kernel /boot/bzImage-3.2.2-1 root=/dev/sda3 init=/sbin/init
>> initrd /initramfs-3.2.2-1.img
>>
>> Does anyone think dracut is not working?  I need to make certain before
>> diving into the next step.
> 
> Looks like it's all working for you then!
> 
> Todd
> 
> 


Yeppie    :-D   :-D  :-D

I don't think I asked for help getting it to work either.  o_O

Oh, I did get the fresh install to start compiling.  Just had to get a
sledge hammer and threaten it a little bit.  I didn't hurt the paint job
tho.  lol

Dale

:-)  :-)

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or
how you interpreted my words!

Miss the compile output?  Hint:
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"

Re: [gentoo-user] LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 2:50 PM, pk  wrote:
> On 2012-03-10 16:35, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>
>> I'm using the latest testing with a separate /usr and no problems.
>
> So udev-181 (masked) is ok to use without initrd and separate /usr
> then? Thanks for the info!

That's one case; I would not take it for granted that it would work in
any other case. The fact is, udev upstream does not support a
separated /usr without an initramfs since . That Neil got it working
may be a fluke, good luck, the phase of the moon, or all from above
combined.

If you plan to keep a separated /usr and refuse to use an initramfs, I
would recommend sticking to the last version *you* know for sure it
works, or risk getting a nasty surprise at some upgrade.

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

[gentoo-user] gmail smtp overwrites the sender

[András Csányi]

Dear All,

I would like to ask some help! I would like to use gmail smtp to send
my email from my domain which is sayusi.hu, and the email address is
sayusi.a...@sayusi.hu. Unfortunately, gmail smtp always overwrite the
sender email address. If I would like to subscribe for a mailing list
with this email address and the email is sent from my local machine
the respond always comes to my gmail address which used to
authenticate.

I have tried to set up my gmail account but doesn't matter what the
setup is the sender always will be overwrite. Do you know any solution
for this?

Thanks in advance!

András

-- 
- -
--  Csanyi Andras (Sayusi Ando)  -- http://sayusi.hu --
http://facebook.com/andras.csanyi
--  ""Trust in God and keep your gunpowder dry!" - Cromwell

Re: [gentoo-user] LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[pk]

On 2012-03-10 16:35, Neil Bothwick wrote:

> I'm using the latest testing with a separate /usr and no problems.

So udev-181 (masked) is ok to use without initrd and separate /usr
then? Thanks for the info!

Best regards

Peter K

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Disk usage during emerge

[Mark Knecht]

On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Mark Knecht  wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Bryan Gardiner  wrote:

>> From Paul's output:
>>> sys-apps/smartmontools:
>>>         5082    /usr/sbin/smartd
>>> sys-auth/consolekit:
>>>         4384    /usr/sbin/console-kit-daemon
>>
>> This gives the package name, filename, and PID.  Are you looking for
>> something else?
>>
>> - Bryan
>>
>
> Hi Bryan,
>   When I run checkrestart here I don't get all the output you saw in
> Paul's post. Right now I have no problems so the output is boring:
>
> c2stable ~ # checkrestart
> Found 0 processes using old versions of upgraded files
> c2stable ~ #
>
> However earlier, when I had 1 old file in use checkrestart told me I
> had 1 process that needed to be restarted but didn't tell me which
> one. It did say something like
>
> Read checkrestart(1)
>
> which I took to be a man page, but I couldn't get anything to come up using 
> man.
>
> Cheers,
> Mark

Never mind. After an update this morning I had 67 old files in use and
checkrestart did tell me the scripts to restart. I must have missed it
before.

Cheers,
Mark

Re: [gentoo-user] Best file system for portage tree?

[Neil Bothwick]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 19:36:07 +0100, YoYo Siska wrote:

> > I use an ext2 filesystem for portage, it's still the fastest out
> > there. Journals are unnecessary because its such a small filesystem,
> > and if it does get damaged I can just reformat and sync again.  
> 
> I use an ext2 partition in a 500MB file image on most of my computers.

I used to do that but, after switching to LVM, it was simpler to use an
LV.

> Its important to check the inode count on such small filesytem, as
> mke2fs' default inode ration for such size is 4096, which is too
> low for portage:
> 
> dd bs=$((500*1024*1024)) count=1 if=/dev/zero of=/usr/img_portage
> mke2fs -f -b1024 -i2048 /usr/img_portage

I use similar arguments for mke2fs.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Why do they call it a TV set when you only get one?


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Disk usage during emerge

[Mark Knecht]

On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Bryan Gardiner  wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Mar 2012 09:09:37 -0800
> Mark Knecht  wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 7:33 AM, Paul Hartman
>>  wrote:
>> >
>> > I just ran it, here's the output:
>> >
>> > Found 22 processes using old versions of upgraded files
>> > (15 distinct programs)
>> > (14 distinct packages)
>> >
>>
>> Is there a way inside of checkrestart to determine exactly which
>> processes it's telling you about? When I installed it at on Niko's
>> suggestion I had one package but I couldn't figure out which it was. A
>> reboot fixed that.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mark
>>
>
> From Paul's output:
>> sys-apps/smartmontools:
>>         5082    /usr/sbin/smartd
>> sys-auth/consolekit:
>>         4384    /usr/sbin/console-kit-daemon
>
> This gives the package name, filename, and PID.  Are you looking for
> something else?
>
> - Bryan
>

Hi Bryan,
   When I run checkrestart here I don't get all the output you saw in
Paul's post. Right now I have no problems so the output is boring:

c2stable ~ # checkrestart
Found 0 processes using old versions of upgraded files
c2stable ~ #

However earlier, when I had 1 old file in use checkrestart told me I
had 1 process that needed to be restarted but didn't tell me which
one. It did say something like

Read checkrestart(1)

which I took to be a man page, but I couldn't get anything to come up using man.

Cheers,
Mark

Re: [gentoo-user] Best file system for portage tree?

[YoYo Siska]

On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 03:35:05PM +, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 14:30:15 +0100, Alex Schuster wrote:
> 
> > 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?
> 
> I use an ext2 filesystem for portage, it's still the fastest out there.
> Journals are unnecessary because its such a small filesystem, and if it
> does get damaged I can just reformat and sync again.

I use an ext2 partition in a 500MB file image on most of my computers.
Its important to check the inode count on such small filesytem, as
mke2fs' default inode ration for such size is 4096, which is too
low for portage:

dd bs=$((500*1024*1024)) count=1 if=/dev/zero of=/usr/img_portage
mke2fs -f -b1024 -i2048 /usr/img_portage

fstab:
/usr/img_portage/usr/portage/   ext2loop,noatime
0 0
(this is from desktop, on servers I usually only mount it manually when
emerging)

# df -h
Filesystem  Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/loop0  469M  306M  139M  69% /usr/portage

# df -i
FilesystemInodes   IUsed IFree IUse% Mounted on
/dev/loop0256032  152044103988   60% /usr/portage


yoyo

Re: [gentoo-user] Best file system for portage tree?

[Bryan Gardiner]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 22:09:26 +0700
Pandu Poluan  wrote:

> On Mar 10, 2012 8:33 PM, "Alex Schuster"  wrote:
> >
> > Hi there!
> >
> > Is there an advantage in putting the portage tree on an extra
> > partition?
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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? :)
> >
> 
> This had been my burning question when I was deploying the company's
> production server, and forced me to do some research:
> 
> * reiserfs is amazingly fast for reads, but suffers on simultaneous
> writes
> * reiserfs does not have inode limits
> * reiserfs' notail affects performance greatly depending on the
> nature of the system: I/O-bound (use notail) or CPU-bound (don't use
> notail)
> * reiserfs, if mounted without notail, is very space-efficient
> 
> So, I end up with the following mix:
> 
> * ext2 for /boot
> * reiserfs for /usr/portage and /var/tmp (RAM is at premium; can't use
> tmpfs)
> * ext4 for everything else
> 
> This cocktail has been serving me well. I don't need advanced
> filesystems like ZFS, XFS, or btrfs, because my servers are
> virtualized, and the advanced features (e.g., snapshot) is handled by
> the underlying hypervisor (XenServer) and SAN Storage (we use NetApp).
> 
> Rgds,

That's very close to what I do (though not for the same
extensively-researched reasons :).  I added an extra bit of twiddling
in make.conf:

DISTDIR="/usr/local/distfiles"  # On /.
PKGDIR="/usr/local/packages"  # On /.
PORTDIR="/mnt/portage/gentoo"  # /mnt/portage is reiserfs and has /layman too

This way the requirements for the portage partition grow much more
gradually (changed that due to overflow once), and on the random
chance that reiserfs gets corrupted, I don't lose all my
fetch-restricted distfiles.

- Bryan

Re: [gentoo-user] LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Todd Goodman]

* Dale  [120309 21:55]:
> Howdy,
> 
[..]
> [0.787822] Trying to unpack rootfs image as initramfs...

It found your initramfs...

> [0.867787] Freeing initrd memory: 5084k freed

The followng look like they're from your Dracut initramfs

> [0.880111] audit: initializing netlink socket (disabled)
> [0.880439] type=2000 audit(1331081750.879:1): initialized
> [0.912626] fuse init (API version 7.17)
> [1.258561] ehci_hcd :00:12.2: init command 0010005 (park)=0
> ithresh=1 period=512 RUN
> [1.270152] ehci_hcd :00:13.2: init command 0010005 (park)=0
> ithresh=1 period=512 RUN
> [1.583458] device-mapper: ioctl: 4.22.0-ioctl (2011-10-19)
> initialised: dm-de...@redhat.com

The following here certainly are

> [4.258421] init-early.sh used greatest stack depth: 3696 bytes left
> [4.503735] init.sh used greatest stack depth: 3576 bytes left

And the following are confirmation

> root@fireball / # dmesg | grep dracut
> [3.018189] dracut: Checking reiserfs: /dev/sda3
> [3.018531] dracut: issuing reiserfsck -a  /dev/sda3
> [3.033879] dracut: Reiserfs super block in block 16 on 0x803 of
> format 3.6 with standard journal
> [3.034463] dracut: Blocks (total/free): 4883760/2502678 by 4096 bytes
> [3.034781] dracut: Filesystem is clean
> [3.035210] dracut: Remounting /dev/sda3 with -o ro
> [3.082413] dracut: Mounted root filesystem /dev/sda3
> [3.158322] dracut: Switching root
> root@fireball / #
> 
> And grub looks like this:
> 
> title=Initramfs-new_kernel
> root (hd0,0)
> kernel /boot/bzImage-3.2.2-1 root=/dev/sda3 init=/sbin/init
> initrd /initramfs-3.2.2-1.img
> 
> Does anyone think dracut is not working?  I need to make certain before
> diving into the next step.

Looks like it's all working for you then!

Todd

Re: [gentoo-user] LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Neil Bothwick]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 11:58:18 +0100, pk wrote:

> Btw, does anyone know which version of udev requires access to /usr? I'm
> running latest stable here 171-r5 and I have separate partitions for
> /home /opt /usr /usr/local /tmp /var, all on LVM and /boot on a separate
> partition outside of LVM, and it works fine.

I'm using the latest testing with a separate /usr and no problems.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

WinErr 014: Keyboard locked - Try anything you can think of.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-user] Best file system for portage tree?

[Neil Bothwick]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 14:30:15 +0100, Alex Schuster wrote:

> 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?

I use an ext2 filesystem for portage, it's still the fastest out there.
Journals are unnecessary because its such a small filesystem, and if it
does get damaged I can just reformat and sync again.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but
  that's not why we do it.Richard Feynman


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-user] Best file system for portage tree?

[Pandu Poluan]

On Mar 10, 2012 10:09 PM, "Pandu Poluan"  wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 10, 2012 8:33 PM, "Alex Schuster"  wrote:
> >
> > Hi there!
> >
> > Is there an advantage in putting the portage tree on an extra partition?
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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? :)
> >
>
> This had been my burning question when I was deploying the company's
production server, and forced me to do some research:
>
> * reiserfs is amazingly fast for reads, but suffers on simultaneous writes
> * reiserfs does not have inode limits
> * reiserfs' notail affects performance greatly depending on the nature of
the system: I/O-bound (use notail) or CPU-bound (don't use notail)
> * reiserfs, if mounted without notail, is very space-efficient
>
> So, I end up with the following mix:
>
> * ext2 for /boot
> * reiserfs for /usr/portage and /var/tmp (RAM is at premium; can't use
tmpfs)
> * ext4 for everything else
>
> This cocktail has been serving me well. I don't need advanced filesystems
like ZFS, XFS, or btrfs, because my servers are virtualized, and the
advanced features (e.g., snapshot) is handled by the underlying hypervisor
(XenServer) and SAN Storage (we use NetApp).
>
> Rgds,

Okay, I did a mixup:

If the system is I/O-bound, *don't* use notail (saves on disk read/write).

If the system is CPU-bound, *use* notail (saves on having to 'unpack' the
tail from the metadata).

In my situation, the bottleneck is the SAN Storage, so I don't use notail.

Rgds,

Re: [gentoo-user] Best file system for portage tree?

[Pandu Poluan]

On Mar 10, 2012 8:33 PM, "Alex Schuster"  wrote:
>
> Hi there!
>
> Is there an advantage in putting the portage tree on an extra partition?
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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? :)
>

This had been my burning question when I was deploying the company's
production server, and forced me to do some research:

* reiserfs is amazingly fast for reads, but suffers on simultaneous writes
* reiserfs does not have inode limits
* reiserfs' notail affects performance greatly depending on the nature of
the system: I/O-bound (use notail) or CPU-bound (don't use notail)
* reiserfs, if mounted without notail, is very space-efficient

So, I end up with the following mix:

* ext2 for /boot
* reiserfs for /usr/portage and /var/tmp (RAM is at premium; can't use
tmpfs)
* ext4 for everything else

This cocktail has been serving me well. I don't need advanced filesystems
like ZFS, XFS, or btrfs, because my servers are virtualized, and the
advanced features (e.g., snapshot) is handled by the underlying hypervisor
(XenServer) and SAN Storage (we use NetApp).

Rgds,

Re: [gentoo-user] Best file system for portage tree?

[Florian Philipp]

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Best file system for portage tree?

[Dale]

Alex Schuster wrote:
> Hi there!
> 
> Is there an advantage in putting the portage tree on an extra partition?
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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
> 
> 


I have mine on its own partition.  Faster, not sure but most likely. I
use ext3 for mine.

Since I am redoing my partitions, I'm looking forward to reading what
others say.

Dale

:-)  :-)

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or
how you interpreted my words!

Miss the compile output?  Hint:
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"

[gentoo-user] Best file system for portage tree?

[Alex Schuster]

Hi there!

Is there an advantage in putting the portage tree on an extra partition?

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.

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.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Dale]

Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 04:30:41 -0600, Dale wrote:
> 
>>> I've seen that if you switch to ~arch and make wholesale USE flag
>>> changes. I think I avoided most of it by switching arch, doing emerge
>>> -e system or world and then changing USE flags.
> 
>> I even tried USE="-*" emerge -e system and it just griped.  I have also
>> tried to upgrade one package at a time.  Each one complains about some
>> other package.
> 
> USE="-*" is horrible. Leave the USE flags as they were in the stage 3,
> rebuild as needed then switch back, probably piecemeal, to what you want.
> 
> 


Yea, each thing has its negatives.  It doesn't like the default USE line
either tho.  <  sighs >  I'm getting a BIGGER hammer.

Right now, it won't even install gentoolkit.  Weird.

Dale

:-)  :-)

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or
how you interpreted my words!

Miss the compile output?  Hint:
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"

Re: [gentoo-user] LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[William Kenworthy]

On Sat, 2012-03-10 at 03:45 -0600, Dale wrote:
> Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 00:03:44 -0600, Dale wrote:
> > 
> >> Well, that is one of the things I want to change.  I have several
> >> reasons for wanting to change this mess.  One is a file system change
> >> and the other is to use LVM for stuff.  I basically want LVM for
> >> everything but root itself and /boot of course. 
> > 
> > If you're already using an initramfs to mount /usr, you may as well put
> > root on LVM too and let it mount that too. Alternatively, have a small /,
> > a few hundred MB, and no separate /boot.
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> That could be a good idea.  I got other issues right now.
> 
> I decided to do a fresh install on the larger drive.  I sort of like to
> brush up every once in a while.  I got to the point where I want to do a
> emerge -e system then copy my world file over and finish it up.  It
> appears that the stage3 tarball is in a state where not much can be
> upgraded.  Every time I try to update something, I get a list of blocks,
> either packages or USE flags.
> 
> I'm going to try to beat some sense into this a while longer then I'm
> going to bed, right after rm -rfv /mnt/gentoo/* is started.  ;-)
> 
> Dale
> 
> :-)  :-)
> 

ah LVM, dont you just love it ... just ran low on space on a /home
partition across town.  ok, reclaim some space from /var/data  which at
1.4T has plenty to spare.  Once Ive finished I noticed a "small"
problem ... typed 1G instead of 1T when shrinking /var/data, and the
89Gb packet capture I had there is toast :(

One of those "Ah F..." moments ... love backups.

Billk

Re: [gentoo-user] LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[pk]

On 2012-03-10 03:48, Dale wrote:
> Howdy,

Howdy!

> this?  I'm thinking about redoing my partition layout.  I'm wanting to
> keep / (root) on a normal ext4 file system.  I want to put /usr, /var,

As long as you don't use the udev version that requires access to /usr
at boot time (or mdev) then you can keep using a non-init boot (I do),
as long as /bin /sbin is on root...

Btw, does anyone know which version of udev requires access to /usr? I'm
running latest stable here 171-r5 and I have separate partitions for
/home /opt /usr /usr/local /tmp /var, all on LVM and /boot on a separate
partition outside of LVM, and it works fine.

Best regards

Peter K

Re: [gentoo-user] LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Neil Bothwick]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 04:30:41 -0600, Dale wrote:

> > I've seen that if you switch to ~arch and make wholesale USE flag
> > changes. I think I avoided most of it by switching arch, doing emerge
> > -e system or world and then changing USE flags.

> I even tried USE="-*" emerge -e system and it just griped.  I have also
> tried to upgrade one package at a time.  Each one complains about some
> other package.

USE="-*" is horrible. Leave the USE flags as they were in the stage 3,
rebuild as needed then switch back, probably piecemeal, to what you want.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Top Oxymorons Number 23: Sweet sorrow


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-user] LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Dale]

Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 03:45:53 -0600, Dale wrote:
> 
>> I decided to do a fresh install on the larger drive.  I sort of like to
>> brush up every once in a while.  I got to the point where I want to do a
>> emerge -e system then copy my world file over and finish it up.  It
>> appears that the stage3 tarball is in a state where not much can be
>> upgraded.  Every time I try to update something, I get a list of blocks,
>> either packages or USE flags.
> 
> I've seen that if you switch to ~arch and make wholesale USE flag
> changes. I think I avoided most of it by switching arch, doing emerge -e
> system or world and then changing USE flags.
> 
> 

I even tried USE="-*" emerge -e system and it just griped.  I have also
tried to upgrade one package at a time.  Each one complains about some
other package.

I'll try again another time.  I'm ready to hang portage right now.  lol

Dale

:-)  :-)

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or
how you interpreted my words!

Miss the compile output?  Hint:
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"

Re: [gentoo-user] LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Neil Bothwick]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 03:45:53 -0600, Dale wrote:

> I decided to do a fresh install on the larger drive.  I sort of like to
> brush up every once in a while.  I got to the point where I want to do a
> emerge -e system then copy my world file over and finish it up.  It
> appears that the stage3 tarball is in a state where not much can be
> upgraded.  Every time I try to update something, I get a list of blocks,
> either packages or USE flags.

I've seen that if you switch to ~arch and make wholesale USE flag
changes. I think I avoided most of it by switching arch, doing emerge -e
system or world and then changing USE flags.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Why marry a virgin? If she wasn't good enough for the rest of them, then
she isn't good enough for you.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-user] LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Neil Bothwick]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 03:45:53 -0600, Dale wrote:

> I'm going to try to beat some sense into this a while longer then I'm
> going to bed, right after rm -rfv /mnt/gentoo/* is started.  ;-)

What's the point in using -v if you're not there to watch it? ;-)


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Documentation: (n.) a novel sold with software, designed to entertain the
   operator during episodes of bugs or glitches.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-user] LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Dale]

Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 00:03:44 -0600, Dale wrote:
> 
>> Well, that is one of the things I want to change.  I have several
>> reasons for wanting to change this mess.  One is a file system change
>> and the other is to use LVM for stuff.  I basically want LVM for
>> everything but root itself and /boot of course. 
> 
> If you're already using an initramfs to mount /usr, you may as well put
> root on LVM too and let it mount that too. Alternatively, have a small /,
> a few hundred MB, and no separate /boot.
> 
> 


That could be a good idea.  I got other issues right now.

I decided to do a fresh install on the larger drive.  I sort of like to
brush up every once in a while.  I got to the point where I want to do a
emerge -e system then copy my world file over and finish it up.  It
appears that the stage3 tarball is in a state where not much can be
upgraded.  Every time I try to update something, I get a list of blocks,
either packages or USE flags.

I'm going to try to beat some sense into this a while longer then I'm
going to bed, right after rm -rfv /mnt/gentoo/* is started.  ;-)

Dale

:-)  :-)

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or
how you interpreted my words!

Miss the compile output?  Hint:
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"

Re: [gentoo-user] LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Neil Bothwick]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 00:03:44 -0600, Dale wrote:

> Well, that is one of the things I want to change.  I have several
> reasons for wanting to change this mess.  One is a file system change
> and the other is to use LVM for stuff.  I basically want LVM for
> everything but root itself and /boot of course. 

If you're already using an initramfs to mount /usr, you may as well put
root on LVM too and let it mount that too. Alternatively, have a small /,
a few hundred MB, and no separate /boot.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

without C people would code in Basi, Pasal and Obol


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature