Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 20:29:44 -0700 (MST) From: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> To: Chris H <bsd-lists@bsdforge.com> Cc: Tijl Coosemans <tijl@FreeBSD.org>, Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@gmx.de>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Reducing the size of the ports tree (brainstorm v2) Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.11.1411042022410.99894@wonkity.com> In-Reply-To: <4b76467a41c12811b0bd9b6ab13906c8@ultimatedns.net> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.11.1411042022410.99894>