Default inode number too low in FFS nowadays?

[Alexander Best]

On Fri Nov  4 11, Chris Rees wrote:
> On 4 November 2011 14:16, Alexander Best <arundel at freebsd.org> wrote:
> > On Fri Nov  4 11, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
> >> Matt Connor wrote:
> >> >
> >> >On Nov 3, 2011, at 5:43 AM, Ivan Voras<ivoras at freebsd.org>  wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>On 02/11/2011 12:57, Borja Marcos wrote:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> >>Did you forget to do "make clean" after "make install" on several large
> >> >>ports?
> >> >>
> >> >>But yes, the ports tree is getting a bit unwieldy. On the other hand,
> >> >>did you fsck the file system lately?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >cd /usr/ports/ports-mgmt/portupgrade&&  make install clean
> >> >
> >> >portsclean -CD
> >> >
> >> >That's a quick way to clean out all the clutter.
> >>
> >> Installing ruby and portupgrade is really big overhead to simple task,
> >> which can be done by:
> >>
> >> cd /usr/ports && make clean
> >>
> >> or with find:
> >>
> >> find /usr/ports/ -depth 3 -name "work" -exec rm -r {} +
> >
> > ...or with 'rm -rf /usr/ports/*/*/work'
> >
> 
> I almost had the strength of mind to stay out of this....
> 
> BUT you could well run into argument list too long issues there
> (considering the insane number of inodes used), so you're probably
> better off getting around that using the builtin echo:
> 
> # echo /usr/ports/*/*/work | xargs rm -r

right i forgot about long argument lists. will -prune speed up the above
find(1) command invocation?

cheers.
alex

> 
> Since you're doing stuff like that, find is probably more appropriate.
> 
> Chris