qumak on Tue, 5 Jun 2001 20:40:06 -0400 |
Le Mardi 5 Juin 2001 08:00, vous (gabriel rosenkoetter) avez écrit : > V-derived systems, this defaults to 512b blocks. On all the Linux > systems I've used, it seems to default to 1K blocks. On every system > trying to be POSIX compliant, du -k reports in 1K blocks. > > Does this imply that the ext2 file systems on all the Linux systems > I've used are using 1K blocks on disk? I doubt it. It's just what > whoever wrote GNU's du decided was appropriate (because it's easier > for a human to understand? I guess, but only because we've become > power-of-(about)-ten-byte centric in the 90s). > > I'm still distantly curious about why the default block sizes for > ext2 are what they are (does this make ext2 deal with a wider > variety of disks better with less user intervention? seems like a > program-that's-trying-to-be-too-smart problem would come up awfully > quickly that way), but I guess I'm more curious about what workloads > call for what block sizes (and fragment sizes, and cylinders per > group, and so forth). Any conventional or experimental wisdom on > that? well - this is what i see with du, would suggest against the 1K rule: [qumak@XXXX qumak]$ echo 'test' > sample [qumak@XXXX qumak]$ du -b sample 4096 sample [qumak@XXXX qumak]$ wc -c sample 5 sample [qumak@XXXX qumak]$ this to me would suggest that du can be only as specific as the block size of your filesystem (the -b option looks for bits, by the way - much like wc -c, except of course the 4091 extra non-existant bits ;)) I'm assuming the fifth byte is in fact the first, being a magic number, but i'm probably wrong, it could be something else entirely ;) --qumak(james) ______________________________________________________________________ Philadelphia Linux Users Group - http://www.phillylinux.org Announcements-http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug-announce General Discussion - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug
|
|