On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 04:09:44PM +0100, Roger Oberholtzer wrote: > >This is interesting: > >When I have some images (over 587000 of them) on a ext3-format partition, >they take 19737878 bytes (19.7 GB). When these same files are on a vfat >partition, they take 27154592 (27.1 GB). Same images. Just copied freshly to >the windows disk, so there is no fragmentation. > >I guess this is because linux file systems (all?) only take roughly the >space needed for each file, no matter what the size. Windows vfat takes 64K >for each file, even if it is 1 byte in size. The images are mainly under >64K, so the amount of each file that is under 64 K is wasted on the disk by >windows. > >And you wonder why we don't like windows. And disk sellers love it. > >Of course, NTFS is supposed to be better about this, but I won't test it.
I think you'll find that if you copied them to a reiserfs, they would take considerably less space than ext[23]. I don't have any xfs experience so can't compare utilization there. Bill -- INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC UUCP: camco!bill PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way FAX: (206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676 URL: http://www.celestial.com/ When you have an efficient government, you have a dictatorship. -- Harry Truman _______________________________________________ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
