List Archive: gentoo-mirrors
Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.c.f. bug 424647
On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 05:27:08PM +0200, Carsten Otto wrote:
> thank you for the quick reply.
> On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 09:57:11AM -0500, Jeremy Olexa wrote:
> > Well, the infra team didn't make any changes. The gentoo-portage tree
> > is a living thing that adapts as the software becomes more complex.
> > There was a change to better protect users against timestamp oddities
> > (https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=409445)
> > We don't suggest any particular filesystem. That is up to you to
> > implement for your own needs. I'm sorry that you ran out of inodes
> > (our infrastructure did too, our ramdisks became full)
> I know that I am free to pick my file system. I just think that
> increasing the amounts of inodes substantially (did you double?) is
> something worth mentioning. Furthermore, I don't really care if this is
> caused by team A or team B inside the Gentoo developer world. This is a
> change that is of huge interest to everyone mirroring portage and using
> a file system that has a restricted number of inodes (which is a huge
> percentage, I'd guess).
I'm very interested in your claim of double.
Raw Bytes: 24238169
4k blocks: 31165
Size @ 4k blocks: 124660k
Raw Bytes: 32650108
4k blocks: 31037
Size @ 4k blocks: 124148k
Raw bytes: 263333212
4k blocks: 181851
Size @ 4k blocks: 727404k
So a 20% increase in inodes yes, but not double.
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux: Developer, Trustee & Infrastructure Lead
E-Mail : email@example.com
GnuPG FP : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85