On Tue, 4 Nov 2014, Chris H wrote:
On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 16:16:09 -0700 (MST) Warren Block <[email protected]> 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.
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
