| 1 |
Hi, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 15:52:17 +0200 |
| 4 |
Etaoin Shrdlu <shrdlu@×××××××××××××.org> wrote: |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> Also, the block size of the file system in which /usr/portage lives can |
| 7 |
> make a big difference. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
True. See below... |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> Try a clean /usr/portage on an ext2/3 filesystem vs. a /usr/portage on |
| 12 |
> reiserfs and you'll see what I mean. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
FS type isn't about blocksize (well, maybe about blocksize |
| 15 |
constraints). Reiserfs supports putting more than one file in a single |
| 16 |
block, that's why using Reiser makes a difference, too. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
But reg. blocksize: |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
$ du -sh --exclude=packages --exclude=distfiles /usr/portage/ |
| 21 |
138M /usr/portage/ |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Neat, eh? That's because of this: |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
$ xfs_info /usr/portage/ |
| 26 |
[...] |
| 27 |
data = bsize=512 blocks=706792, imaxpct=25 |
| 28 |
= sunit=0 swidth=0 blks, unwritten=1 |
| 29 |
[...] |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
As you can see, a blocksize of 512 bytes is enough to keep portage |
| 32 |
small. I've dedicated a small partition to the portage tree because of |
| 33 |
this. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-hwh |
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives