[gentoo-portage-dev] Re: Recommendation about faster (not smaller) filesystem and blocksize combination for portage tree

2009-04-17 Thread Duncan
Pacho Ramos pa...@condmat1.ciencias.uniovi.es posted 1239914420.18698.0.ca...@localhost, excerpted below, on Thu, 16 Apr 2009 22:40:20 +0200: Thanks, finally seems that, in my case, reiserfs with nolog,noatime works really fast and with a smaller size (thanks to tail) :-D =:^) -- Duncan -

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: Recommendation about faster (not smaller) filesystem and blocksize combination for portage tree

2009-04-16 Thread Pacho Ramos
El lun, 30-03-2009 a las 16:30 +, Duncan escribió: 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

[gentoo-portage-dev] Re: Recommendation about faster (not smaller) filesystem and blocksize combination for portage tree

2009-03-30 Thread Duncan
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