[clug] very FAT linux filesystems or cluster pixes?

[Scott Ferguson]

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 17:02:27 +1100 Robert Edwards wrote:
> 
> On 23/02/11 13:57, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>> > Can any one give me a reason why the same files should dramatically
>> > change size according to the file system it resides on?
>> >
>> > Eg#0 1960 files in 259 sub-folders == 11.8MB debian lenny server ext3
>> >
>> > Eg#1 same files, checked with md5 sums == 11.8MB debian squeeze server ext4
>> >
>> > Eg#2 ditto, == 11.8MB on unknow OS and files system (*cough* godaddy *spit*)
>> >
>> > Eg#3 ditto, == 27MB CentOS, unknown filesystem (other web hosting company)
>> >
> How confident are you that they are running CentOS and not some *BSD?

Very. Part of the package I offer clients is a VirtualBox appliance
running Debian as a development machine. I do a fair bit of
fingerprinting to make sure it is a similar as possible. cPanel gives me
some indication, as did the tech, but I'm cynical and check with nmap
and p0f. Some of the apache mods are very distinctive.

> 
> Could be that they are running *BSD, with 512byte blocks instead of 1k
> blocks in Linux and their admin tools are simply multiplying the number
> of blocks in each file by 1k. The two-to-one increase looks suspicious
> to me.
> 
> Alternatively, they may be charging you for backup space for your files?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Bob Edwards.
> 

That said, though it's outside of my knowledge area, I "imagine" it's
possible to mount a BSD filesystem, or a BSD managed filesystem, under
CentOS. So let me ammend that to "I'm certain apache and php are running
on a CentOS kernel". For all I know my files might be hosted on Windoof
2K filesystem running the old NFS extensions mapped to the CentOS server...

Backup space?  Maybe, though why you'd back-up to the same filesystem
escapes me... it that a new trend? :-)
They do offer a backup service - but the disclaimer makes it a bit of a
gamble (all charges, no responsibility, nothing close to an SLA)
standard cheap hosting stuff.

And I very much agree about the two:one increase being suspicious,
surely I'm not the first person to question/notice the practice.

Cheers