From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bruce Guenter Subject: reiserfs tails and disk space Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 12:15:49 -0600 Message-ID: <20060117181548.GB11010@untroubled.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="M9NhX3UHpAaciwkO" Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com Content-Disposition: inline List-Id: To: reiserfs-list@namesys.com --M9NhX3UHpAaciwkO Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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=3Doff", "tails=3Don", or "tails=3Dsmall". 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=3Doff" 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=3Doff 1023964 645996 377968 tails=3Don 1023964 646000 377964 tails=3Dsmall 1023964 645996 377968 default 377600+0 records out notail 377600+0 records out tails=3Doff 377592+0 records out tails=3Don 377588+0 records out tails=3Dsmall 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. --=20 Bruce Guenter http://untroubled.org/ OpenPGP key: 699980E8 / D0B7 C8DD 365D A395 29DA 2E2A E96F B2DC 6999 80E8 --M9NhX3UHpAaciwkO Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDzTRU6W+y3GmZgOgRAiT2AJ9eb3ylq8HsG8JRQUWG009tHtUOkQCghIUB 3/leQLil7rJdY2gmZwElmQ0= =myd5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --M9NhX3UHpAaciwkO--