FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Gentoo > Gentoo User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 09-02-2008, 05:15 PM
Ale
 
Default Partition schme question

*Hi all! i am running Gentoo in a Dell Inspiron 1420, using XFS as fs for / and /home, ext2 for /boot,* leaving 40 Gb for other things (probably a lvm to run vms).
*I am thinking if i will get better performance* mounting /var/tmp/ and/or /usr/portage in other partition.


Thanks,
Cheers!
 
Old 09-02-2008, 06:44 PM
Neil Bothwick
 
Default Partition schme question

On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 14:15:03 -0300, Ale wrote:

> I am thinking if i will get better performance mounting /var/tmp/
> and/or /usr/portage in other partition.

I use ext2 for each of these, as it is the fastest filesystem and
journalling isn't needed for filesystems that contain temporary data.


--
Neil Bothwick

... "I dropped my toothpaste," Tom said, Crestfallen.
 
Old 09-02-2008, 07:14 PM
Florian Philipp
 
Default Partition schme question

Neil Bothwick schrieb:

On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 14:15:03 -0300, Ale wrote:


I am thinking if i will get better performance mounting /var/tmp/
and/or /usr/portage in other partition.


I use ext2 for each of these, as it is the fastest filesystem and
journalling isn't needed for filesystems that contain temporary data.




Of course, if your system crashes, you have to do an fsck which takes
approx. 10s for a filled portage-tree on a 5400rpm HDD and I understand
the time it takes increases with the size of the partition, not (or not
only) with the number of files on it.


You should also consider putting them near the beginning of the disk.
You can do this by booting a live-CD and use gparted to move your
root-partition.
 
Old 09-02-2008, 07:26 PM
Volker Armin Hemmann
 
Default Partition schme question

On Dienstag, 2. September 2008, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 14:15:03 -0300, Ale wrote:
> > I am thinking if i will get better performance mounting /var/tmp/
> > and/or /usr/portage in other partition.
>
> I use ext2 for each of these, as it is the fastest filesystem and
> journalling isn't needed for filesystems that contain temporary data.

really? I saw a lot of tests that said otherwise.

/tmp and /var/tmp/portage are good candidates for tmpfs.
 
Old 09-02-2008, 08:04 PM
Alan McKinnon
 
Default Partition schme question

On Tuesday 02 September 2008 21:14:25 Florian Philipp wrote:
> Neil Bothwick schrieb:
> > On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 14:15:03 -0300, Ale wrote:
> >> I am thinking if i will get better performance mounting /var/tmp/
> >> and/or /usr/portage in other partition.
> >
> > I use ext2 for each of these, as it is the fastest filesystem and
> > journalling isn't needed for filesystems that contain temporary data.
>
> Of course, if your system crashes, you have to do an fsck which takes
> approx. 10s for a filled portage-tree on a 5400rpm HDD and I understand
> the time it takes increases with the size of the partition, not (or not
> only) with the number of files on it.

It increases with the number of blocks and inodes in use mostly. Which
generally does equate to bigger partitions take longer as they have more stuff
stored in them

> You should also consider putting them near the beginning of the disk.
> You can do this by booting a live-CD and use gparted to move your
> root-partition.

These days you have absolutely no guarantee that a partition is in the
location on the disk where the cylinder numbers imply they should be. Disk
manufacturers are free to put the bits of a disk that add up to this mythical
thing called a "cylinder" any place they like, as long as the mapping between
them is maintained. There is also no way I know of to ask a disk where a
specific sector actually resides.

--
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
 
Old 09-02-2008, 08:26 PM
Florian Philipp
 
Default Partition schme question

Alan McKinnon schrieb:

On Tuesday 02 September 2008 21:14:25 Florian Philipp wrote:


You should also consider putting them near the beginning of the disk.
You can do this by booting a live-CD and use gparted to move your
root-partition.


These days you have absolutely no guarantee that a partition is in the
location on the disk where the cylinder numbers imply they should be. Disk
manufacturers are free to put the bits of a disk that add up to this mythical
thing called a "cylinder" any place they like, as long as the mapping between
them is maintained. There is also no way I know of to ask a disk where a
specific sector actually resides.




No guarantee, but a pretty high chance:
dd if=/dev/sda2 of=/dev/null
...
957169664 bytes (957 MB) copied, 17.5531 s, 54.5 MB/s

dd if=/dev/sda12 of=/dev/null
...
820854784 bytes (821 MB) copied, 21.4136 s, 38.3 MB/s

I wouldn't care about this difference if I had a fast and big HDD or a
RAID but on a 5400rpm notebook HDD it really makes a difference,
especially when you are using tuxonice for suspend to disk.
 
Old 09-02-2008, 08:28 PM
Alan McKinnon
 
Default Partition schme question

On Tuesday 02 September 2008 22:26:08 Florian Philipp wrote:
> Alan McKinnon schrieb:
> > On Tuesday 02 September 2008 21:14:25 Florian Philipp wrote:
> >> You should also consider putting them near the beginning of the disk.
> >> You can do this by booting a live-CD and use gparted to move your
> >> root-partition.
> >
> > These days you have absolutely no guarantee that a partition is in the
> > location on the disk where the cylinder numbers imply they should be.
> > Disk manufacturers are free to put the bits of a disk that add up to this
> > mythical thing called a "cylinder" any place they like, as long as the
> > mapping between them is maintained. There is also no way I know of to ask
> > a disk where a specific sector actually resides.
>
> No guarantee, but a pretty high chance:
> dd if=/dev/sda2 of=/dev/null
> ...
> 957169664 bytes (957 MB) copied, 17.5531 s, 54.5 MB/s
>
> dd if=/dev/sda12 of=/dev/null
> ...
> 820854784 bytes (821 MB) copied, 21.4136 s, 38.3 MB/s
>
> I wouldn't care about this difference if I had a fast and big HDD or a
> RAID but on a 5400rpm notebook HDD it really makes a difference,
> especially when you are using tuxonice for suspend to disk.

What do you conclude from this?


--
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
 
Old 09-02-2008, 08:39 PM
Neil Bothwick
 
Default Partition schme question

On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 21:26:45 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:

> /tmp and /var/tmp/portage are good candidates for tmpfs.

/tmp is already on tmpfs, I don't have enough RAM to build OOo
with /var/tmp on tmpfs


--
Neil Bothwick

From the moment I picked your book up until I laid it down I was
convulsed with laughter. Someday I intend reading it.
 
Old 09-03-2008, 12:17 AM
Volker Armin Hemmann
 
Default Partition schme question

On Dienstag, 2. September 2008, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 21:26:45 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> > /tmp and /var/tmp/portage are good candidates for tmpfs.
>
> /tmp is already on tmpfs, I don't have enough RAM to build OOo
> with /var/tmp on tmpfs

me too - but I don't build ooo
 
Old 09-03-2008, 03:57 AM
Jarry
 
Default Partition schme question

Alan McKinnon wrote:

dd if=/dev/sda2 of=/dev/null
957169664 bytes (957 MB) copied, 17.5531 s, 54.5 MB/s

dd if=/dev/sda12 of=/dev/null
820854784 bytes (821 MB) copied, 21.4136 s, 38.3 MB/s


What do you conclude from this?


I'd say that /dev/sda2 is near "beginning" of disk (outer side,
more sectors per cylinder, higher transfer speed), and /dev/sda12
is near "end" of disk (inner side, less sectors per cylinder,
lower transfer speed).

Jarry

--
__________________________________________________ _____________
This mailbox accepts e-mails only from selected mailing-lists!
Everything else is considered to be spam and therefore deleted.
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org