From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Nov 5 04:24:56 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA2D9A5; Wed, 5 Nov 2014 04:24:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from udns.ultimatedns.net (unknown [IPv6:2602:d1:b4d6:e600:4261:86ff:fef6:aa2a]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A8AE79D2; Wed, 5 Nov 2014 04:24:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ultimatedns.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by udns.ultimatedns.net (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id sA54QkJh047896; Tue, 4 Nov 2014 20:26:47 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bsd-lists@bsdforge.com) To: Warren Block In-Reply-To: References: <20141031185621.GC15967@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <54573B31.7080809@gmx.de>, <20141103212438.0893c3dc@kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org> <14d0c0b9ee9ca31877d43a3c29481717@ultimatedns.net>, <4b76467a41c12811b0bd9b6ab13906c8@ultimatedns.net>, From: "Chris H" Subject: Re: Reducing the size of the ports tree (brainstorm v2) Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 20:26:47 -0800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=fixed MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: Tijl Coosemans , Matthias Andree , 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 04:24:56 -0000 On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 20:29:44 -0700 (MST) Warren Block wrote > On Tue, 4 Nov 2014, Chris H wrote: > > > On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 16:16:09 -0700 (MST) Warren Block > > 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. Difficult to tell for sure. I haven't examined the [UFS/ZFS] source to know for sure. Be valuable info. :) OTOH I only mentioned utilizing a smaller boundary, as I felt it was a reasonable solution related to size issue mentioned. I have just about enough spares laying about, to do some comparison/ benchmarking on UFS v ZFS v 4k v 512b. If I get a chance this week. I'm going to give it a go, and see if I can extrapolate useful data. --Chris