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 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1HhkRP-0003Cb-5o for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 28 Apr 2007 10:46:11 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l3SAixUx013093; Sat, 28 Apr 2007 10:44:59 GMT Received: from desiato.localdomain (82-69-83-178.dsl.in-addr.zen.co.uk [82.69.83.178]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l3SAejto008407 for ; Sat, 28 Apr 2007 10:40:45 GMT Received: from hactar.digimed.co.uk (hactar.digimed.co.uk [192.168.1.2]) by desiato.localdomain (Postfix) with ESMTP id 758DD35DF for ; Sat, 28 Apr 2007 11:40:44 +0100 (BST) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 11:40:32 +0100 From: Neil Bothwick To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Reducing disk usage Message-ID: <20070428114032.4ffa92d7@hactar.digimed.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20070428095901.GA3742@ark.in-berlin.de> References: <49bf44f10704260759g214dbb00o40c674ca7167cdd2@mail.gmail.com> <4630E536.3040108@fire-eyes.org> <1433284.sqkpgDReDL@m-id.message-center.info> <20070428095901.GA3742@ark.in-berlin.de> Organization: Digital Media Production X-Mailer: Claws Mail 2.9.1cvs32 (GTK+ 2.10.11; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) X-GPG-Fingerprint: 7260 0F33 97EC 2F1E 7667 FE37 BA6E 1A97 4375 1903 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=Sig_G+uzUqEAcBVV_JR1MeNuxn1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1 X-Archives-Salt: 81676c7d-3f3c-4272-b799-66d9897cf2dc X-Archives-Hash: cd36fe8a42874c3af254a7f9de43eb24 --Sig_G+uzUqEAcBVV_JR1MeNuxn1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 11:59:01 +0200, Ralf Stephan wrote: > > This Depends largely on the "type" of files. I've got my portage > > tree on a reiserfs, and in comparison to ext3, it saves couple > > 100 (one-zero-zero) megs! =20 >=20 > OTOH, you may not need to switch to reiser for that. > It may simply be a matter of giving /usr/portage its own=20 > partition and a smaller block size. You would only save space like that if the partition was only just big enough to hold the portage tree. With the amount of file churn in the tree, the filesystem would get very fragmented very quickly. --=20 Neil Bothwick I don't know what makes you tick but I wish it was a time bomb. --Sig_G+uzUqEAcBVV_JR1MeNuxn1 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGMySrum4al0N1GQMRArGVAKCgL+sjB87mqbRgOp4mHwqI7Oy+1ACgnV8g MO8GSB3H1sOIa8dFk+uahlw= =ZXd4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_G+uzUqEAcBVV_JR1MeNuxn1-- -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list