block sizes > 4K ?? possible w/large page support?

[Linda A. Walsh]

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...