Andy Ross wrote: > This is a good point, actually. Almost all the Linux filesystems use > a 4k block as the minimum allocation unit*, and I presume NTFS is > similar.
I thought it was the other way around: that most Linux filesystems (by which I mean ext2) and NTFS had 1K or 0.5K blocks, and that Windows FAT filesystems had big (generally 4K to 16K) blocks. > [* Geeky aside: reiserfs doesn't. It has a unique "tail folding" > feature where the last sub-block of files gets folded into a single > block with the tails of other files, so small files take space > proportional to their actual size. Very cool, although apparently > not used much.] ReiserFS is the default with SUSE 8.1 which I've just installed. Oh yes ... hey folks, I've just made the switch from Windows to Linux. Played with RedHat and Debian a couple of times in the last few years, but now I think it's a permanent switch. > The windows issue is, I think, true only on very old FAT32 variants. > I'm pretty sure the block size limitation went away at the same time > the 2G limit did, no? Everything from Win98SE on should be fine, I > believe. Any windows users want to comment? Certainly anyone running > XP won't have this problem. My Windows ME (successor to 98SE) had a single 15 GB FAT-32 partition, and it uses 8 KB blocks. On that, FG scenery was eating large chunks of my disk space. I think FAT-32 is capable of using small (0.5K or 1K) blocks but is not configured to do so because the FAT itself would be big and therefore slow when following the block chain in large files. - Julian _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
