From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Nov  5 03:29:54 2014
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 718E27C4;
 Wed,  5 Nov 2014 03:29:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from wonkity.com (wonkity.com [67.158.26.137])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (Client CN "wonkity.com", Issuer "wonkity.com" (not verified))
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D8682B5;
 Wed,  5 Nov 2014 03:29:53 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from wonkity.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by wonkity.com (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id sA53TiAd057683
 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO);
 Tue, 4 Nov 2014 20:29:45 -0700 (MST)
 (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com)
Received: from localhost (wblock@localhost)
 by wonkity.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/Submit) with ESMTP id sA53TiVv057679;
 Tue, 4 Nov 2014 20:29:44 -0700 (MST)
 (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com)
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 20:29:44 -0700 (MST)
From: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com>
To: Chris H <bsd-lists@bsdforge.com>
Subject: Re: Reducing the size of the ports tree (brainstorm v2)
In-Reply-To: <4b76467a41c12811b0bd9b6ab13906c8@ultimatedns.net>
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.11.1411042022410.99894@wonkity.com>
References: <20141031185621.GC15967@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net>
 <54573B31.7080809@gmx.de>,
 <20141103212438.0893c3dc@kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org>
 <14d0c0b9ee9ca31877d43a3c29481717@ultimatedns.net>,
 <alpine.BSF.2.11.1411041608200.91469@wonkity.com>
 <4b76467a41c12811b0bd9b6ab13906c8@ultimatedns.net>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (BSF 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3
 (wonkity.com [127.0.0.1]); Tue, 04 Nov 2014 20:29:45 -0700 (MST)
Cc: Tijl Coosemans <tijl@FreeBSD.org>, Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@gmx.de>,
 freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 03:29:54 -0000

On Tue, 4 Nov 2014, Chris H wrote:

> On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 16:16:09 -0700 (MST) Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> wrote
>
>> On Tue, 4 Nov 2014, Chris H wrote:
>>
>>> gpart(8) -a gives you what you need. If it's truly as bad as all that,
>>> mounting the ports tree on a 512k aligned slice will reduce the "slack"
>>> you appear to be referring to. zfs(8) also has this ability.
>>
>> Not alignment, but filesystem block size.  But that can only be set for
>> an entire filesystem, and it's a tradeoff.
>
> Quite true. Which was meant to be my point.
> Meaning that the ports tree could then be mounted where ever was
> deemed convenient, and wouldn't carry the "slack" it does on a
> 4k boundary. Maybe even on a removable SSD?

I thought that block suballocation was a thing on most modern 
filesystems.  There would still be an extra seek or several to locate 
the small sub-blocks inside a full block, but it should make space usage 
with small files more efficient.  But I don't know what either UFS or 
ZFS does for that.