On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 08:44:02AM +0000, Sven Vermeulen wrote: > On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 10:06:18AM +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote: > > Looks then that there are several alternatives for portage tree, then, > > maybe the option would be to add a note to Gentoo Handbook explaining > > the cons of having portage tree on a standard partition and, then, put a > > link to a wiki page (for example) where all this alternatives are > > explained. > > > > What do you think about this approach? > > I don't like the "cons" approach, as it gives the impression that users are > pushed into a negative solution, whereas the current situation works just > fine for almost all users. The approach for a different partition is for > performance reasons (which most users don't have any negative feelings > about) and as such might be read as a "ricer" approach.
For modern hardware w/ a modern kernel (or at least >=2.6.38 for the dcache resolution optimizations)... does anyone actually have real performance stats for this? If the notion is a seperate FS, one tailored to the portage tree's usage models (tail packing for example), sure, grok that although I question how much people really are getting out of it. In the past, situation definitely differed- I'm just wondering if the gain is actually worth debating it, rather than just ignoring it (or sticking it in a foot note for people trying to use durons). ~harring
