[Samba] Destination share larger than windows source
mike at piratehaven.org
Wed Apr 18 19:18:16 MDT 2012
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 08:20:20AM -0500, Chris Weiss wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Mike Kelly <mike at piratehaven.org> wrote:
> > I copied over a share as a test and was a bit surprised when the amount
> > of space allocated in the file system was over 100GB larger than the
> > Windows source. I am running on ext4 with "strict allocate = yes"
> Do your ntfs and ext4 filesystems have the same block size?
According to fsutil fsinfo ntfsinfo:
Bytes Per Sector: 512
Bytes Per Cluster: 4096
Byter Per FileRecord Segment: 1024
According to tune2fs:
Block size: 4096
Yes, it appears so.
> also ntfs does support sparse files, and it's more than likely that
> whatever tool you copied would not preserve that by default if it
> encountered any.
The problem isn't that the copying program doesn't support sparse files
so much as when I have strict allocation turned on I get much larger
file system usage. I would easily accept a few hundred megabytes of
difference as an artifact of sparse files, but 117 GB seems much too
large. Regardless of this, when you consider that the size, as
reported by Windows, should represent how much space something takes up
on say, a USB thumb drive formatted with FAT (which does not support
sparse files), it starts to look like this is a bug.
--------Mike at PirateHaven.org-----------------------The_glass_is_too_big--------
More information about the samba