Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 04:37:15 -0700 From: Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> To: Peter Jeremy <PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au> Cc: "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: /usr/portsnap vs. /var/db/portsnap Message-ID: <42F4A0EB.1080009@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20050806112118.GA7708@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> References: <42F47C0D.2020704@freebsd.org> <20050806112118.GA7708@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Peter Jeremy wrote: > 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 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. I considered it, but for performance reasons it is much better to keep each port as a separate file. > 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. I don't think 13000 inodes will be a big problem on /usr for most people. The rather small drive on my laptop has two million inodes allocated for /usr. > Maybe you need to make the location an option (either compile time or > in a configuration file) It is configurable. Ok, I'll make /var/db/portsnap the default and tell people to change that in /etc/portsnap.conf if they want. Colin Percival
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?42F4A0EB.1080009>