Oleg Drokin wrote: >Hello! > >On Sun, Jun 23, 2002 at 11:18:02AM +0400, Hans Reiser wrote: > > > >>>>I think I probably care more about downloading and trying the latest >>>>kalendar than installing a new kernel on it.;-) It is nice to have ssh >>>> >>>> >>>Yes, exactly. I do not see how you (or any other user) would benefit from >>>using anything but vfat in CF, but disadvantages are pretty clear. >>> >>> >>Space would be saved if the journal was shrunk in size.... >> >> > >VFAT (fat32) addresses 512 byte blocks while reiserfs now addresses >4096 byte blocks. (not this can be theoretically decreased to 1024 byte blocks >with a patch, but in this case tree will grow very quickly and will reach >height of 5 way too soon). And while on reiserfs tails are not packed >for files over 16K (and not packed for smaller files in some cases to to avoid >"seeks"), it is impossible to spend more than 511 bytes of unused space >on vfat no matter what file size is. (vs max of 4095 bytes wasted on >reiserfs in unlucky case). >So right now I do not see noticeable space savings. > End of file space wastage is critical for small files not large ones. For small files we do much better than VFAT.
I don't know what overhead they have for various kinds of metadata though..... It is probably true that VFAT does a better job for CF than for usual hard drives though. >Of course I have not performed precise measurements so this is only >a theory. > >Bye, > Oleg > > > > -- Hans
