Reducing the size of the ports tree (brainstorm v2)
wblock at wonkity.com
Wed Nov 5 03:29:54 UTC 2014
On Tue, 4 Nov 2014, Chris H wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 16:16:09 -0700 (MST) Warren Block <wblock at 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?
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.
More information about the freebsd-ports