When searching for something else, I stumbled upon this article:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...ted-at.bofh.it

I was quite shocked to read that. Compare that 78.4Mb to this:

$> du -sh /usr/portage
405M /usr/portage

That is after deleting the contents of "/usr/portage/distfiles" and
"/usr/portage/packages". "stat" reveals that the blocksize of the
relevant filesystem is 4096. I'm considering applying applying what
is said here:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...ted-at.bofh.it

Before I do that, I would like to ask two questions:

(a) What part of /usr/portage can be safely pruned or regenerated
using "emerge sync" if necessary?

(b) What is the size of your portage tree?

Thanks,

R.

du -sh /usr/portage gives 341M.
With FSV, I can check that 341M is not possible. The biggest directory
is 7,56MB (/usr/portage/metadata).
The 'du' command is not giving the right value. I'm using reiser fs.
I guess it is a difference between real size and size on disk due to the
high number of small files.


Rolleston wrote:
> (b) What is the size of your portage tree?

I forgot to say that the real size is 76M.

Albert wrote:
> du -sh /usr/portage gives 341M.
> With FSV, I can check that 341M is not possible. The biggest directory
> is 7,56MB (/usr/portage/metadata).
> The 'du' command is not giving the right value. I'm using reiser fs.
> I guess it is a difference between real size and size on disk due to the
> high number of small files.
>
>
> Rolleston wrote:
> > (b) What is the size of your portage tree?