[clug] very FAT linux filesystems or cluster pixes?

[A Gupta]

Let's assume that the first provider has 1k block size and the second one
has 8k (highly unlikely).

With 1960 files, let's assume that 1959 are 1k each and 1 file is 10924k
adding to 11.8MB (1st provider). These files will take (1959*7) + 1
additional KBs for storage i.e 13.39MB.

That's why I said block size difference doesn't explain 15.2MB difference in
size.

Cheers, Anshul

On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 4:46 PM, David Deaves <David.Deaves at dd.id.au> wrote:

>
> My first guess would be the block (and or fragment) size of the filesystem.
>
> This determines the minimum allocation unit.  If all your files are smaller
> than the minimum allocation unit on file system 1 which has a say a minimum
> allocation of 2k and you copy them over to a filesystem with a minimum
> allocation size of 4k then you will naturally consume twice as much space.
>
> It may even be a 4k (common on ext2fs and friends) verses an 8k min
> allocation
> unit - I am not particularly aware of such a filesystem, but would not be
> greatly surprised if some massive SAN style device did such a thing.
> Expecting
> to be full of bloated word documents rather than fast and light (I hope)
> web
> content.
>
> Dave !
>
>
>
> --
> linux mailing list
> linux at lists.samba.org
> https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/linux
>