On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 10:23:49AM +0100, Alex Schuster wrote:
José Romildo Malaquias writes:
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 07:36:07PM +0100, YoYo Siska wrote:
mke2fs -f -b1024 -i2048 /usr/img_portage
The -f option from mke2fs is to specify a fragment size and expects an
argument. Do
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 07:36:07PM +0100, YoYo Siska wrote:
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
José Romildo Malaquias writes:
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 07:36:07PM +0100, YoYo Siska wrote:
mke2fs -f -b1024 -i2048 /usr/img_portage
The -f option from mke2fs is to specify a fragment size and expects an
argument. Do you -F (which forces mke2fs to create a filesystem, even if
the
YoYo Siska writes:
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 03:35:05PM +, Neil Bothwick 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.
Replaying
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
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.
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,
On Mar 10, 2012 8:33 PM, Alex Schuster wo...@wonkology.org 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
On Mar 10, 2012 10:09 PM, Pandu Poluan pa...@poluan.info wrote:
On Mar 10, 2012 8:33 PM, Alex Schuster wo...@wonkology.org 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
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
On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 22:09:26 +0700
Pandu Poluan pa...@poluan.info wrote:
On Mar 10, 2012 8:33 PM, Alex Schuster wo...@wonkology.org 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
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
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
13 matches
Mail list logo
