The result is not expected, Vitaly please look into it. Hans
Bruce Guenter wrote: >Hi. > >I've been running a few tests with reiserfs and tails, and have been >unable to create a setup where the use (or lack) of tails results in a >significant difference in the amount of disk space used. > >Here's what I've done: > >1. Create a fresh 1GB filesystem (in a file on loopback), using reiserfs >with no options. > >2. Mount the filesystem with either no options, "notail", "tails=off", >"tails=on", or "tails=small". > >3. Unpack a sources tarball onto the filesystem, consisting of two fully >compiled versions of the linux kernel. The tarball contains 47996 files >and 3321 directories totalling about 660MB of space. > >4. Measure the free disk space using df. > >5. Use dd to fill up the free disk space and count how many 1kB blocks >it could write. > >In all of the tests, the result was within 12kB of each other. In fact, >the tests with "notail" or "tails=off" options had more usable disk >space than when using tails. > >Results: > >Options 1K-blocks Used Available >default 1023964 645988 377976 >notail 1023964 645988 377976 >tails=off 1023964 645996 377968 >tails=on 1023964 646000 377964 >tails=small 1023964 645996 377968 > >default 377600+0 records out >notail 377600+0 records out >tails=off 377592+0 records out >tails=on 377588+0 records out >tails=small 377592+0 records out > >I've put the log files and scripts up for review at > http://untroubled.org/reiserfsdf/ >I'm using Gentoo Linux, kernel 2.6.14-gentoo-r5 > >Am I missing something, is this an expected result, or is something >broken? > >Thanks. > >
