From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ig0-f174.google.com ([209.85.213.174]:48709 "EHLO mail-ig0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754686AbaAAUMn (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Jan 2014 15:12:43 -0500 Received: by mail-ig0-f174.google.com with SMTP id hk11so40236628igb.1 for ; Wed, 01 Jan 2014 12:12:43 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <52C476B8.2040601@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2014 15:12:40 -0500 From: Austin S Hemmelgarn MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kai Krakow , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Migrate to bcache: A few questions References: <52C1990D.9060704@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <52C1990D.9060704@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 12/30/2013 11:02 AM, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: > > As an alternative to using bcache, you might try something simmilar to > the following: > 64G SSD with /boot, /, and /usr > Other HDD with /var, /usr/portage, /usr/src, and /home > tmpfs or ramdisk for /tmp and /var/tmp > This is essentially what I use now, and I have found that it > significantly improves system performance. > On this specific note, I would actually suggest against putting the portage tree on btrfs, it makes syncing go ridiculously slow, and it also seems to slow down emerge as well.