From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Nov 4 15:29:42 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FA3C1065670; Fri, 4 Nov 2011 15:29:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from utisoft@gmail.com) Received: from mail-iy0-f182.google.com (mail-iy0-f182.google.com [209.85.210.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 200218FC15; Fri, 4 Nov 2011 15:29:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iabz21 with SMTP id z21so4265276iab.13 for ; Fri, 04 Nov 2011 08:29:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=fQMsJioytpYNbYAJsoACei+rbHBWt1qBH4p4PmVIsNg=; b=Aty6Axr+86wst5u7qGECdAXWkoFdBmJHTlpf2DA7iREqetrnTGPXKwrE3JA/AUIR6T ozn1QmUclYHIqOacum0+ApVcoiuZ5InSWmd5MZ4iKS9VsCgpu0+PiTDAFNc3Ia7OSG7w euXUx9TvC4KOpTFbFwqq07S+faJjXQrEoS5E4= Received: by 10.231.82.11 with SMTP id z11mr3701979ibk.77.1320420581218; Fri, 04 Nov 2011 08:29:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: utisoft@gmail.com Received: by 10.231.11.140 with HTTP; Fri, 4 Nov 2011 08:29:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20111104141626.GA28925@freebsd.org> References: <5C156A63-D86D-4C1B-AFC4-DC5EA09494F6@xerq.net> <4EB3C63F.2060805@quip.cz> <20111104141626.GA28925@freebsd.org> From: Chris Rees Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 15:29:10 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: RTXpo4CEkNCMWQdJEgZ6w-96-M4 Message-ID: To: Alexander Best Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "freebsd-fs@freebsd.org" , Ivan Voras Subject: Re: Default inode number too low in FFS nowadays? X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2011 15:29:42 -0000 On 4 November 2011 14:16, Alexander Best wrote: > On Fri Nov =A04 11, Miroslav Lachman wrote: >> Matt Connor wrote: >> > >> >On Nov 3, 2011, at 5:43 AM, Ivan Voras =A0wrote: >> > >> >>On 02/11/2011 12:57, Borja Marcos wrote: >> >> [...] >> >> >>Did you forget to do "make clean" after "make install" on several larg= e >> >>ports? >> >> >> >>But yes, the ports tree is getting a bit unwieldy. On the other hand, >> >>did you fsck the file system lately? >> >> >> > >> >cd /usr/ports/ports-mgmt/portupgrade&& =A0make install clean >> > >> >portsclean -CD >> > >> >That's a quick way to clean out all the clutter. >> >> Installing ruby and portupgrade is really big overhead to simple task, >> which can be done by: >> >> cd /usr/ports && make clean >> >> or with find: >> >> find /usr/ports/ -depth 3 -name "work" -exec rm -r {} + > > ...or with 'rm -rf /usr/ports/*/*/work' > I almost had the strength of mind to stay out of this.... BUT you could well run into argument list too long issues there (considering the insane number of inodes used), so you're probably better off getting around that using the builtin echo: # echo /usr/ports/*/*/work | xargs rm -r Since you're doing stuff like that, find is probably more appropriate. Chris