From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?iso-8859-2?B?o3VrYXN6IE1pZXJ6d2E=?= Subject: Re: metadata plugins (was Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 18:05:01 +0200 Message-ID: References: <200607281402.k6SE245v004715@laptop13.inf.utfsm.cl> <1154164364.2903.10.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <44CBA4BF.80301@slaphack.com> <200607300132.28326.sarathmenon@gmail.com> <44CBC557.4050403@slaphack.com> <20060730115526.GB5336@hermes.uziel.local> <7a329d910607301410x6d6fb4f0sa946c8764be82ab1@mail.gmail.com> <20060730213757.GB6420@hermes.uziel.local> <20060730214237.GC6420@hermes.uziel.local> <7a329d910607310821p69e964f7t8d29300f3221cfa3@mail.gmail.com> <44CE286F.6000700@slaphack.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <44CE286F.6000700@slaphack.com> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"; charset="iso-8859-1" To: "reiserfs-list@namesys.com" Dnia Mon, 31 Jul 2006 17:57:35 +0200, David Masover =20 napisa=B3: > Wil Reichert wrote: >> =3D) >> That was sorta the plan. >> Any idea how the fragmentation resulting from re-syncing the tree >> affects performance over time? > > Try to post replies at the bottom, or below the context. > > Yes, it does affect it a lot. I have no idea how much, and I've never =20 > benchmarked it, but purely subjectively, my portage has gotten slower =20 > over time. I gues that extens are much harder to reuse then normal inodes so when You = =20 have something as big as portage tree filled with nano files wich are =20 being modified all the time then You just can't keep performance all the =20 time. You can always tar, rm -fr /usr/portage, untar and You will probably = =20 speed things up a lot.