Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 17:50:14 -0800 From: "Chris H" <bsd-lists@bsdforge.com> To: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.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: <4b76467a41c12811b0bd9b6ab13906c8@ultimatedns.net> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.11.1411041608200.91469@wonkity.com> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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? --Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4b76467a41c12811b0bd9b6ab13906c8>