From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Ra4aA-0002tz-1b for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 12:02:10 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5796821C297; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 12:01:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx.virtyou.com (mx.virtyou.com [178.33.32.244]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCC7F21C290 for ; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 12:00:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from weird.wonkology.org (p5B277BF8.dip.t-dialin.net [91.39.123.248]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx.virtyou.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0E7F2DC058 for ; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 13:00:59 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 13:00:55 +0100 From: Alex Schuster To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] ext4 inode limit reached Message-ID: <20111212130055.0c1c057a@weird.wonkology.org> In-Reply-To: <4EE5E268.9090404@admin-box.com> References: <4EE5E268.9090404@admin-box.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.10 (GTK+ 2.24.8; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: ef73ebf3-c315-42c1-90ff-d02a4041056b X-Archives-Hash: 20960a76432f5ef6a07b8f35ce024b35 Daniel Troeder writes: > I have an ext4-filesystem that contains /usr/src, the /usr/portage and > /var/cache/edb. It previously also contained /var/db/pkg, but I had to > move that some weeks ago, because the fs was "full". Now it's "full" > again, though it has free blocks. But no inodes are left: > > $ fsck -vf /dev/sda5 > [..] > 655360 inodes used (100.00%) > [..] > > $ find /gentoo -xdev | wc -l > 655338 > > That's really disappointing. I was using reiser3fs and XFS before, and > they didn't have that kind of limitation... Uhm... not meant as a rant - > I like ext4 - that's why I'm moving (almost?) everything to it... > > Is there any way to raise the number of inodes without using > $ mkfs.ext4 -N BIGNUM Not really I think. You can enlarge the file system with resize2fs, this will also increase the number of inodes, but that's probably hard when not using LVM, and it's not really what you want, as the file system will be larger than it needs to be. Wonko