[gentoo-user] Re: Size of portage tree
On 9/28/05, Harry Putnam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've noticed /usr/portage is standing at a little over 2 gigs in size. Is this about normal? glumtail [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You can alway rm /usr/portage/distfiles/ Those files can be downloaded again when emerge. Yup, that turned out tobe 1.5 gigs of it... -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-user] Re: Size of portage tree
Etaoin Shrdlu [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wednesday 28 September 2005 14:43, glumtail wrote: You can alway rm /usr/portage/distfiles/ Those files can be downloaded again when emerge. Also, the block size of the file system in which /usr/portage lives can make a big difference. Try a clean /usr/portage on an ext2/3 filesystem vs. a /usr/portage on reiserfs and you'll see what I mean. I am using reiserfs but only on trial basis. I've noticed what appears to be quite a large increase in time needed for fs intensive things like du or rm -rf as compared to ext3 but I've done no real comparison testing. Have you noticed that too? -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Size of portage tree
On Wednesday 28 September 2005 15:55, Harry Putnam wrote: Etaoin Shrdlu [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wednesday 28 September 2005 14:43, glumtail wrote: You can alway rm /usr/portage/distfiles/ Those files can be downloaded again when emerge. Also, the block size of the file system in which /usr/portage lives can make a big difference. Try a clean /usr/portage on an ext2/3 filesystem vs. a /usr/portage on reiserfs and you'll see what I mean. I am using reiserfs but only on trial basis. I've noticed what appears to be quite a large increase in time needed for fs intensive things like du or rm -rf as compared to ext3 but I've done no real comparison testing. Have you noticed that too? no, but I noticed, that reiserfs needs much less space with small files (like portage tree) than ext2/3. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Size of portage tree
On Wednesday 28 September 2005 12:21, Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: no, but I noticed, that reiserfs needs much less space with small files (like portage tree) than ext2/3. Any numbers you can post ? -- José Pablo Ezequiel Fernández -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Size of portage tree
Rumen Yotov wrote: On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 14:29:17 -0300 Jos__ Pablo Ezequiel Fern__ndez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wednesday 28 September 2005 12:21, Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: no, but I noticed, that reiserfs needs much less space with small files (like portage tree) than ext2/3. Any numbers you can post ? Hi, Some time ago there was such 'subject' with some data to confirm it. Now: #du -h --exclude=packages --exclude=distfiles /var/portage/ Result=434M. This is on reiserfs-3.6 with tail packing ON. Note: my portage directory is in /var not /usr Rumen confirmed: reiserfs = 434M ext3 = 516M having reiserfs = 100M : 100 -- 118.89 -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Reiserfs speed (Was: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Size of portage tree)
Harry Putnam wrote: I am using reiserfs but only on trial basis. I've noticed what appears to be quite a large increase in time needed for fs intensive things like du or rm -rf as compared to ext3 but I've done no real comparison testing. Have you noticed that too? This is normal, and it's a feature. Reiserfs uses hash values to speed the lookup of single files, and as a result the readdir() system call in reiserfs (which is what find, rm -rf, and du use to walk a directory tree) returns file names in order of their hash value, which probably does not match the order of the files on disk. On the other hand, ext3 readdir() returns files in inode order. This means the disk will typically have to do more seeking for these operations on reiserfs than ext3, which returns file names in inode order. Actually, you can see similar performance differences between ext3 filesystems formatted with -O dir_index and those without. You can 'fix' this by tar'ing, reformatting, and restoring the filesystem, which will have the effect of ordering files on disk according to their hash value. Cheers, -Richard -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Size of portage tree
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005, Rumen Yotov wrote: Note: my portage directory is in /var not /usr Why? -- -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Size of portage tree
no, but I noticed, that reiserfs needs much less space with small files (like portage tree) than ext2/3. The only problem with this solution is you are then stuck using reiserfs... /fsflamewar :D -- Bryan Whitehead Email:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Size of portage tree
On Thursday 29 September 2005 00:32, Bryan Whitehead wrote: no, but I noticed, that reiserfs needs much less space with small files (like portage tree) than ext2/3. The only problem with this solution is you are then stuck using reiserfs... /fsflamewar :D better than stuck with ext3 ;) http://bugzilla.kernel.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMEDbug_status=NEWbug_status=OPENbug_status=ASSIGNEDbug_status=REOPENEDfield0-0-0=producttype0-0-0=substringvalue0-0-0=ext3field0-0-1=componenttype0-0-1=substringvalue0-0-1=ext3field0-0-2=short_desctype0-0-2=substringvalue0-0-2=ext3field0-0-3=status_whiteboardtype0-0-3=substringvalue0-0-3=ext3 they are ALL buggy - choose your poison ;) I have choosen reiser, because space is important for me - and I have a nice tape-drive, which makes backup/restore very easy... but to be honest, I never had reiserfs-bugs.. only hardware errors... -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Size of portage tree
I've lost 5 filesystems on reiser... So I won't touch it anymore. :P :( I'm all XFS and so far have not many problems (with over 100 machines in production). My favorite part about XFS is snapshotting and a working dump command for mounted filesystems... On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: On Thursday 29 September 2005 00:32, Bryan Whitehead wrote: no, but I noticed, that reiserfs needs much less space with small files (like portage tree) than ext2/3. The only problem with this solution is you are then stuck using reiserfs... /fsflamewar :D better than stuck with ext3 ;) http://bugzilla.kernel.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMEDbug_status=NEWbug_status=OPENbug_status=ASSIGNEDbug_status=REOPENEDfield0-0-0=producttype0-0-0=substringvalue0-0-0=ext3field0-0-1=componenttype0-0-1=substringvalue0-0-1=ext3field0-0-2=short_desctype0-0-2=substringvalue0-0-2=ext3field0-0-3=status_whiteboardtype0-0-3=substringvalue0-0-3=ext3 they are ALL buggy - choose your poison ;) I have choosen reiser, because space is important for me - and I have a nice tape-drive, which makes backup/restore very easy... but to be honest, I never had reiserfs-bugs.. only hardware errors... -- Bryan Whitehead Email:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
