Pacho Ramos pa...@condmat1.ciencias.uniovi.es 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!
=:^)
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman