[clug] very FAT linux filesystems or cluster pixes?
email.agupta at gmail.com
Tue Feb 22 22:59:01 MST 2011
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
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
> 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.
> to be full of bloated word documents rather than fast and light (I hope)
> Dave !
> linux mailing list
> linux at lists.samba.org
More information about the linux