Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Location: France, Old Europe
|Posted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 12:49 pm Post subject:
|both of your speed comparisons maybe flawed since much of the gain will be due to defragging your reiserfs with the copy.
I no longer use that fs for just that reason.
Try copying portage.old to portage.not.so.old and benchmark all three.
There may well be some gains with your technique but I'd bet a fair bit of it is simply a well ordered fs against an old fragmented one.
you cant really use emerge --sync as a comparison because the network and the server will be the major factors not your local fs. Also once you have done an rsync the next one will be quicker because there is nothing to sync!
Also using ext2 (an unjournaled fs) is bound to be faster than just about any other option, so let's compare the comparable. Put your old tree on ext2 and compare that.
All this may be useful but let's have a bit of science here if we're posting numbers.
personally I now user Reiser4 for portage (have done for over 2yrs actually.) That's much faster the reiserfs.
Linux, because I'd rather own a free OS than steal one that's not worth paying for.
Gentoo because I'm a masochist
AthlonXP-M on A7N8X. Portage ~x86