From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Masover Subject: Re: Space lost? Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2006 04:07:23 -0600 Message-ID: <43BF92DB.5010409@slaphack.com> References: <43BF4857.8070901@eriberto.pro.br> <3405.66.131.16.74.1136610974.squirrel@x2a.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <3405.66.131.16.74.1136610974.squirrel@x2a.org> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Jonathan Bastien-Filiatrault Cc: Eriberto , reiserfs-list@namesys.com Jonathan Bastien-Filiatrault wrote: > Eriberto said: > >>Hello! >> >>I have a partition with 19.535.040 KB (fdisk -l). However after a >>ReiserFS formatting df -k command shows 19.534.436 KB (total space). The >>difference is 604 KB. Why the amount of space decreased after formatting? >> >>Thanks! >> >> >> > > Any filesystem has sturctural overhead. For example, by default, ReiserFS > has a 32MB journal and other data structures. These data structures are > the ones that "take away" space from you. These data structures are > mandatory to any filesystem, ReiserFS is known for having very little > overhead compared to other file systems. In other words, those 604 KB are things like the magic number, so utilities like "file" can guess what FS it is, or what type of file if it's an image, and mostly things like the journal and the amount of space it takes to represent one empty folder. And btw, if you put exactly 100KB on your disk, split into 1KB files, you're probably going to notice your disk usage going up by more than exactly 100KB. How much it goes up by is going to be roughly equivalent to how much space it takes to store the name of each 1KB file. Here's another interesting experiment: Take a directory tree of lots of small files. Gentoo's /usr/portage is a good example. Copy it to ext3, XFS, reiserfs, and Reiser4, then run "du -s" on each copy. I can almost guarentee that Reiser4's is going to be significantly smaller, enough to show up on even "du -sh". Smaller by tens of megabytes, at least. ReiserFS is definitely bigger than Reiser4, but if you have tail packing turned on, it may still be significantly smaller than XFS or ext3. In fact, Reiser4 reserves an aggressive 5% of the disk, so out of your 19,535,040 KB, you'd have 976,752 KB reserved -- that's almost a full gigabyte out of a 20 gig drive. And yet, if you used that drive for small text files, you'd probably find that you saved almost that much space anyway, if not more, by using Reiser4 instead of ext3. So you really shouldn't complain about your lost 604 KB.