On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 05:27:08PM +0200, Carsten Otto wrote: > Hi, > > thank you for the quick reply. > > On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 09:57:11AM -0500, Jeremy Olexa wrote: > > Well, the infra team didn't make any changes. The gentoo-portage tree > > is a living thing that adapts as the software becomes more complex. > > There was a change to better protect users against timestamp oddities > > (https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=409445) > > > > We don't suggest any particular filesystem. That is up to you to > > implement for your own needs. I'm sorry that you ran out of inodes > > (our infrastructure did too, our ramdisks became full) > > I know that I am free to pick my file system. I just think that > increasing the amounts of inodes substantially (did you double?) is > something worth mentioning. Furthermore, I don't really care if this is > caused by team A or team B inside the Gentoo developer world. This is a > change that is of huge interest to everyone mirroring portage and using > a file system that has a restricted number of inodes (which is a huge > percentage, I'd guess). I'm very interested in your claim of double.
Old metadata/cache Files: 30257 Dirs: 156 Raw Bytes: 24238169 4k blocks: 31165 Size @ 4k blocks: 124660k New metadata/md5-cache Files: 30256 Dirs: 155 Raw Bytes: 32650108 4k blocks: 31037 Size @ 4k blocks: 124148k Complete tree: Files: 159761 Dirs: 23166 Raw bytes: 263333212 4k blocks: 181851 Size @ 4k blocks: 727404k So a 20% increase in inodes yes, but not double. -- Robin Hugh Johnson Gentoo Linux: Developer, Trustee & Infrastructure Lead E-Mail : robb...@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85
