Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 20:43:25 -0400 From: "illoai@gmail.com" <illoai@gmail.com> To: RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ran out of inodes on /var, recommended value? Message-ID: <CAHHBGkpeQq=jW7nCwKcmeTJRcmcOxR6O4bR49ZUSG=C-A4bv-g@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20120609233827.497b2ca4@gumby.homeunix.com> References: <4FD34E2A.7060700@dreamchaser.org> <20120609233827.497b2ca4@gumby.homeunix.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 9 June 2012 18:38, RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 07:22:50 -0600 > Gary Aitken wrote: > >> I reconfigured my ssd filesystem with the /var partition of size >> 512M. =A0Unfortunately, something in portsnap or the ports tree in >> general uses a boatload of small files, and i ran out of inodes. =A0Can >> anyone recommend an appropriate size for the newfs -i value? =A01024? >> less? > > portsnap needs roughly one file per port plus one for each > out of date port during a fetch. There are 23658 ports. > > In FreeBSD 9 the fragment size increased, halving the default number of > inodes. With only 32k inodes it's possible to run out with portsnap > alone. You can probably get away with the old default of 64k (-i > 8192), or perhaps 128k (-i 4096). Check how many files you have outside > of portsnap and do the arithmetic. > Or, move the portsnap tree to somewhere other than /var (see /etc/portsnap.conf for that & such). I think that a file-backed md* mounted only when portsnap was in use would save on inodes, yeah? *I guess mdmfs(8) is the jawns y'all use nowadays, yo? --=20 --
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAHHBGkpeQq=jW7nCwKcmeTJRcmcOxR6O4bR49ZUSG=C-A4bv-g>