On Sun, 2004-01-04 at 04:15, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote: > Tom Fredrik Blenning Klaussen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Sat, 2004-01-03 at 04:47, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> I nfs-share /usr/portage. It works fine for me. > > > When talking about sharing /usr/portage I do it at home, but I get a > > huge performance hit when it comes to dependency calculation. > > > Is there any network filesystem very well suited for this kind of > > purpose? > > > I've tried using both samba and shfs. And someone has suggested that I > > try to use coda-fs, which I will try to use soon. To my suprise it seems > > like running "emerge -upD world" is even slower on shfs than on samba. > > Any explanation to that? > > Try looking at the shfs code. ;) > > I believe it is even slower and less efficient than the lufs sshfs > module, which operates in user space. Shfs actually invokes shell > commands on the remote computer (i.e. ls, chmod, rm, du, etc.) and > parses the output. Lufs sshfs uses the sftp protocol.
Sorry, that came out all wrong. What suprised me was that shfs was better than samba. Not the other way around. My mistake. -- ---------- Sincerely Vennlig Hilsen Tom Fredrik Klaussen Rosendalsvn. 16B N-1166 Oslo Norway -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
