On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 20:29:44 -0700 (MST) Warren Block <[email protected]> wrote
> 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. 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 _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
