[clug] very FAT linux filesystems or cluster pixes?

[Scott Ferguson]

On 23/02/11 16:46, David Deaves 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 !
> >
> >
> >
> >

The largest file is 3.6MB - that's the cms install archive. All images
are smaller than 2MB, most less than 1MB.

I don't know any way of checking the actual amount of space used by any
of the files - though there "might" be some way of doing that using php...

Cheers


P.S. the subject line was meant to read "very FAT linux filesystems or
cluster *pixies?*"  (but the fares stole my i)