From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1GV0RM-0002lj-UI for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 04 Oct 2006 06:41:13 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.6) with SMTP id k946eJSr028530; Wed, 4 Oct 2006 06:40:19 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k946cQxb008969 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2006 06:38:27 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DE0364706 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2006 06:38:26 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -2.559 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.559 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.040, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MF1i5oUHLYj1 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2006 06:38:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEC9764508 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2006 06:38:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1GV0OQ-0006d6-OT for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Wed, 04 Oct 2006 08:38:11 +0200 Received: from ip68-230-97-209.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.230.97.209]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 04 Oct 2006 08:38:10 +0200 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-230-97-209.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 04 Oct 2006 08:38:10 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: "Duncan" <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 27: Revisited (aka dynusers/creandus) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 06:38:03 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <20061002225854.05ad0eb1@mk65-desktop.pioto.org> <1159877348.31030.15.camel@vertigo.twi-31o2.org> <20061003134603.2e6e97d1@mk65-desktop.pioto.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-230-97-209.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: pan 0.115 (Mrs. Kerr Says Remember the Tip Jar) Sender: news X-Archives-Salt: 624357e6-5977-4ec3-bf4c-bbcf0b882be6 X-Archives-Hash: d9eb5918cca46923a15ed2856c2f40c2 Mike Kelly posted 20061003134603.2e6e97d1@mk65-desktop.pioto.org, excerpted below, on Tue, 03 Oct 2006 13:46:03 -0400: >> Does it need to be tons and tons of small files, or can >> we get away with a set of larger files with some sort of header? > > Hmm, parsing that would be a more difficult task for my scripts (which > are just basic bash code doing some greps). Also, it seems like the many > small files are easier to maintain. I don't know enough about rsync to > know how it would affect efficiency, though. It's something I'll try > and look into further. Also keep in mind the effect of many small files on block oriented filesystems like ext2/3/4. Some of us use reiserfs or similar "compacting" filesystems where it matters little for our local copy of the tree, but not everybody does, and that file-per-block thing can make a sizable difference on small files in quantity. FWIW I prefer the small files for ease of adm. as well, but just sayin'. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list