From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Nov  4 16:04:21 2011
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1233)
	id 67A471065672; Fri,  4 Nov 2011 16:04:21 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 16:04:21 +0000
From: Alexander Best <arundel@freebsd.org>
To: Chris Rees <crees@freebsd.org>
Message-ID: <20111104160421.GA43288@freebsd.org>
References: <B888842A-7DB4-491B-93E3-A376745019F5@sarenet.es>
	<j8u2af$chv$1@dough.gmane.org>
	<5C156A63-D86D-4C1B-AFC4-DC5EA09494F6@xerq.net>
	<4EB3C63F.2060805@quip.cz> <20111104141626.GA28925@freebsd.org>
	<CADLo83-sTOpfjLDT2gFa9vyvh+w8OVfq-ADm8jar49YzQknjPw@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CADLo83-sTOpfjLDT2gFa9vyvh+w8OVfq-ADm8jar49YzQknjPw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "freebsd-fs@freebsd.org" <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>,
	Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org>
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 <freebsd-fs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2011 16:04:21 -0000

On Fri Nov  4 11, Chris Rees wrote:
> On 4 November 2011 14:16, Alexander Best <arundel@freebsd.org> wrote:
> > On Fri Nov  4 11, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
> >> Matt Connor wrote:
> >> >
> >> >On Nov 3, 2011, at 5:43 AM, Ivan Voras<ivoras@freebsd.org>  wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>On 02/11/2011 12:57, Borja Marcos wrote:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> >>Did you forget to do "make clean" after "make install" on several large
> >> >>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&&  make 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

right i forgot about long argument lists. will -prune speed up the above
find(1) command invocation?

cheers.
alex

> 
> Since you're doing stuff like that, find is probably more appropriate.
> 
> Chris