From owner-freebsd-ports  Thu Apr  4 02:26:02 1996
Return-Path: owner-ports
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id CAA19244
          for ports-outgoing; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 02:26:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id CAA19235
          for <ports@freebsd.org>; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 02:25:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.7.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id CAA06206; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 02:25:42 -0800 (PST)
To: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami)
cc: ports@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: NO_PACKAGE and NO_CDROM 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 04 Apr 1996 02:22:39 PST."
             <199604041022.CAA05276@sunrise.cs.berkeley.edu> 
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 1996 02:25:42 -0800
Message-ID: <6204.828613542@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-ports@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> Last time I mentioned it, someone said it's the number of files that
> affects the size of supscan, not the amount (in megabytes), and that
> was the reason of the ports collection being split up.  I think it was 
> Rod that mentioned it.

I'm running one right now for a `ports-all' collection and will see
how it looks.  If it runs less than 10 minutes and doesn't show up as
the #1 culprit in top, I'll probably let it live.

> I'm not exactly sure about the memory situation of freefall and what
> the coeffecient (assuming it's a linear function) but I think the
> trouble is a bit too much, having to update supfiles all over the
> place every time we add something.

We need to put more memory into freefall, this is true.  I'll get
out my begging hat.. :-)

					Jordan