From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:39122) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jM1F0-0004FR-RJ for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Apr 2020 23:19:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jM1Ez-0006Ha-Sn for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Apr 2020 23:19:02 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:39698) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jM1Ez-0006HS-PP for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Apr 2020 23:19:01 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jM1Ez-0007dV-Ja for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Apr 2020 23:19:01 -0400 Subject: [bug#40236] [PATCH] doc: Suggest Btrfs with compression instead of ext4 for root partition. Resent-Message-ID: From: Maxim Cournoyer References: <20200326083524.20275-1-mail@ambrevar.xyz> <87h7y5z3x0.fsf@gmail.com> <87lfnesxp6.fsf@gnu.org> <87pncqbbp5.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87zhbuqpns.fsf@gnu.org> <87y2rc6nuk.fsf@gmail.com> <87r1x0welb.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87o8s3wz7d.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2020 23:18:40 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87o8s3wz7d.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> (Pierre Neidhardt's message of "Tue, 07 Apr 2020 09:07:50 +0200") Message-ID: <87o8s2k6lr.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: Pierre Neidhardt Cc: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= , 40236@debbugs.gnu.org, Jonathan Brielmaier Hello, Pierre Neidhardt writes: > Jonathan Brielmaier writes: > >> No, I did run openSUSE on btrfs, there was no Guix involved at all. But >> btrfs seemed to be the root case of all my troubles (performance, >> hang-ups etc). I have yet to encounter this kind of problem on the 3 Guix Systems I've installed with root Btrfs file systems. It's been rock stable, even under heavy use (I have a Guix machine configured as a Jenkins slave at work that builds Yocto projects -- it churns through GiB of files daily). [...] >> Snapshots did fill up my disk. Snapshots only fill up the disk when we use them (and leave them behind for enough time that the content they refer to has been mostly rewritten. >> So maybe create a config for the OSes of tomorrow: btrfs, wireguard, >> rust etc :P > > In the end, what I'm suggesting is this issue is merely a > recommendation. > > Currently Guix is very annoying to use on small Ext4 partitions, e.g. a > 64 GiB SSD. With compression on, you suddenly get 3x more space for > your /gnu/store :) I agree that compression is a nice feature.. It also speeds sequential disk reads and writes. On an old laptop that has a 64 GiB SSD and uses ext4, I have to 'guix gc' too often, and worry a lot about spaces (there's literally not much else than Guix on the drive, but it manages to fill it up quite easily :-). Maxim