1 |
On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 05:27:08PM +0200, Carsten Otto wrote: |
2 |
> Hi, |
3 |
> |
4 |
> thank you for the quick reply. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 09:57:11AM -0500, Jeremy Olexa wrote: |
7 |
> > Well, the infra team didn't make any changes. The gentoo-portage tree |
8 |
> > is a living thing that adapts as the software becomes more complex. |
9 |
> > There was a change to better protect users against timestamp oddities |
10 |
> > (https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=409445) |
11 |
> > |
12 |
> > We don't suggest any particular filesystem. That is up to you to |
13 |
> > implement for your own needs. I'm sorry that you ran out of inodes |
14 |
> > (our infrastructure did too, our ramdisks became full) |
15 |
> |
16 |
> I know that I am free to pick my file system. I just think that |
17 |
> increasing the amounts of inodes substantially (did you double?) is |
18 |
> something worth mentioning. Furthermore, I don't really care if this is |
19 |
> caused by team A or team B inside the Gentoo developer world. This is a |
20 |
> change that is of huge interest to everyone mirroring portage and using |
21 |
> a file system that has a restricted number of inodes (which is a huge |
22 |
> percentage, I'd guess). |
23 |
I'm very interested in your claim of double. |
24 |
|
25 |
Old metadata/cache |
26 |
Files: 30257 |
27 |
Dirs: 156 |
28 |
Raw Bytes: 24238169 |
29 |
4k blocks: 31165 |
30 |
Size @ 4k blocks: 124660k |
31 |
|
32 |
New metadata/md5-cache |
33 |
Files: 30256 |
34 |
Dirs: 155 |
35 |
Raw Bytes: 32650108 |
36 |
4k blocks: 31037 |
37 |
Size @ 4k blocks: 124148k |
38 |
|
39 |
Complete tree: |
40 |
Files: 159761 |
41 |
Dirs: 23166 |
42 |
Raw bytes: 263333212 |
43 |
4k blocks: 181851 |
44 |
Size @ 4k blocks: 727404k |
45 |
|
46 |
So a 20% increase in inodes yes, but not double. |
47 |
|
48 |
-- |
49 |
Robin Hugh Johnson |
50 |
Gentoo Linux: Developer, Trustee & Infrastructure Lead |
51 |
E-Mail : robbat2@g.o |
52 |
GnuPG FP : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85 |