| 1 |
On Sunday 21 Aug 2011 05:47:16 Hilco Wijbenga wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 20 August 2011 21:21, Nilesh Govindarajan <contact@××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On 08/21/2011 09:00 AM, Hilco Wijbenga wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> Yes, df -i says /portage is out of inodes. I've never run into that |
| 5 |
> >> before. I reran mke2fs to increase the inode count and that fixed |
| 6 |
> >> things. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > Sorry for the drop in, but I never knew that mke2fs can increase the |
| 9 |
> > number of inodes! |
| 10 |
> > I think I'll now place the portage tree on an ext2 disk image to speed |
| 11 |
> > up things, / has got fragmented badly due to portage tree :-\ |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Well, for the record, I'm not using ext2 but ext3 (mke2fs -j). |
| 14 |
> Although, now that I think about it, I suppose there's not much point |
| 15 |
> in having the Portage tree on a journaled FS. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> If you run man mke2fs, you should check out -N and -i. It was |
| 18 |
> trial-and-error (for me, anyway) to find the right number. Presumably, |
| 19 |
> -I fits in there somewhere as well. Do note that it only works when |
| 20 |
> creating the FS, you can't change the inode count dynamically. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I've never run out of inodes, even on small partitions. I just let ext4 make |
| 23 |
a fs with its default settings. Is there a magic formula to determine how |
| 24 |
many inodes are optimal? |
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Regards, |
| 27 |
Mick |
Archives