Archives
Archives
| From: | Bryan Whitehead <driver@×××××××××.net> | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| To: | gentoo-user@l.g.o | ||
| Subject: | Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Size of portage tree | ||
| Date: | Wed, 28 Sep 2005 22:40:18 | ||
| Message-Id: | Pine.LNX.4.63.0509281531420.8660@beavis.megahappy.net | ||
| In Reply to: | Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Size of portage tree by "Hemmann | ||
| 1 | > no, but I noticed, that reiserfs needs much less space with small files |
| 2 | > (like portage tree) than ext2/3. |
| 3 | |
| 4 | The only problem with this "solution" is you are then stuck using |
| 5 | reiserfs... |
| 6 | |
| 7 | </fsflamewar> :D |
| 8 | |
| 9 | -- |
| 10 | Bryan Whitehead |
| 11 | Email:driver@×××××××××.net |
| 12 | -- |
| 13 | gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
| Subject | Author |
|---|---|
| Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Size of portage tree | "Hemmann |