On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Matthias Andree <[email protected]> wrote:
> Am 03.11.2014 um 21:24 schrieb Tijl Coosemans: > > > Other tools won't change anything. It's the file system that would > > have to change which is not going to happen. When the ports tree was > > created disks were much smaller and file systems were better (still not > > good) at storing small files. Today disks are much bigger and file > > systems have adapted to that. Now it's time for the ports tree to adapt. > > So you're saying the only answer we've had to growing storage capacities > was growing block sizes, without adding support for "many small files" > back in. What is this 'support for "many small files"' you are referring to? > That's still the fault of the tool (here: tool == file system) > and not of the ports tree. It's a problem with disk's themselves, not an svn or fs problem. Tail packing is already a part of UFS, and disks for the purposes here basically only read one block at a time. If you have a method of overcoming the inherent seek slowness of reading many small files scattered across the spinning media then please share it so progress can be made. This is definitely a problem with the ports system considering the underlying hw and fs has changed characteristics and ports hasn't accounted for them. -- Adam _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
