From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com>
Subject: Re: Is it good for a PDA fs?
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 12:17:48 +0400
Message-ID: <3D15842C.1080100@namesys.com>
References: <20020622115207.E23457@gerf.org> <20020622175746.I13075@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> <3D14B8E9.4020808@namesys.com> <20020622230748.A1981@namesys.com> <3D14E47E.5080300@namesys.com> <20020623105057.A5090@namesys.com> <3D15762A.3000507@namesys.com> <20020623114536.A1003@namesys.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <reiserfs-list-return-10803-reiserfs=m.gmane.org@namesys.com>
list-help: <mailto:reiserfs-list-help@namesys.com>
list-unsubscribe: <mailto:reiserfs-list-unsubscribe@namesys.com>
list-post: <mailto:reiserfs-list@namesys.com>
List-Id: <reiserfs-devel.vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
To: Oleg Drokin <green@namesys.com>
Cc: Chris Dukes <pakrat@www.uk.linux.org>, The Doctor What <docwhat@gerf.org>, reiserfs-list@namesys.com

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