Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 21:21:18 +1000 From: Peter Jeremy <PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au> To: Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> Cc: "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: /usr/portsnap vs. /var/db/portsnap Message-ID: <20050806112118.GA7708@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> In-Reply-To: <42F47C0D.2020704@freebsd.org> References: <42F47C0D.2020704@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 2005-Aug-06 01:59:57 -0700, Colin Percival wrote: >I'm going to be bringing portsnap into the base system very soon, and >roughly 50MB and 13000 inodes. The "natural" place for this to go >would be in /var/db/, but I suspect that this would cause problems >for many users, particularly when it comes to the number of inodes. The number of inodes does seem rather high (I gather it's one per port). Have you considered using an alternative mechanism to store the data? ar(1), dbm(3) and zip(1) would all seem possible options (though zip isn't in the base system). The downside is that updating would be far more expensive in disk space. >Is this a reasonable excuse for violating hier(7) and putting the >compressed snapshot into /usr/portsnap? For reference, the port keeps >the snapshot in /usr/local/portsnap. I think it would be nicer to have it in /var. I suspect that that many inodes may present problems for some people whereever you put it. Maybe you need to make the location an option (either compile time or in a configuration file) -- Peter Jeremy
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050806112118.GA7708>