On 6/12/12 12:37 PM, Linda A. Walsh wrote:
>
>
> 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?
Well, there are some metadata overhead costs there, so it's a tradeoff.
Like we always say, use the defaults unless you can definitively show
that other options work better for your needs after testing. :)
-Eric
|