Eric Sandeen wrote:
On 6/10/12 10:21 PM, Linda A. Walsh wrote:
Is this something being thought about??
More than one of my hard disks:
/boot: 130 files in 103112 4K blocks: 793.6 blks/file
/tmp: 1401 files in 746715 4K blocks: 533.4 blks/file
/var/cache: 1438 files in 87858 4K blocks: 61.5 blks/file
/backups: 713 files in 2523985177 4K blocks: 3539951.6 blks/file
/var: 9038 files in 746715 4K blocks: 83.1 blks/file
/var/cache/squid: 570 files in 90031 4K blocks: 158.4 blks/file
/Media: 51893 files in 1691400956 4K blocks: 32594.5 blks/file
/: 37312 files in 506778 4K blocks: 14.0 blks/file
/usr/share: 320805 files in 195425485 4K blocks: 609.6 blks/file
/backups/Media: 50544 files in 1642550112 4K blocks: 32497.9 blks/file
/usr: 116650 files in 1389380 4K blocks: 12.4 blks/file
/Share: 1617995 files in 305269701 4K blocks: 189.1 blks/file
/home: 5822174 files in 195412389 4K blocks: 34.0 blks/file
All but 2 could benefit from a 16K block size, and 3 of them could benefit
from a 128K block size. Wouldn't that benefit in in freeing up some space
both on disk and in memory? Just a thought.
Since on average each file in an evenly-distributed filesystem wastes half
a block, in theory each fs would waste 4x more space w/ 16k blocks than
4k blocks, right?
Well the real candidates for a larger block size would be backups,
and maybe Media... the rest wouldn't benefit.
So, it sounds like I might just as well benefit by going to a 1K
block size, if there's no cost in smaller block sizes? Or would that be
entirely dependent on the files/dir?
Those blks/file are 4k-blks/file if there was any doubt...