From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [172.16.48.31]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j0RJEJO09773 for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2005 14:14:19 -0500 Received: from percy.comedia.it (percy.comedia.it [212.97.59.71]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j0RJEHqX023436 for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2005 14:14:17 -0500 Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 20:14:16 +0100 From: Luca Berra Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] PE Size and Waste Message-ID: <20050127191416.GC21230@percy.comedia.it> References: <3b24531c050127035217717af5@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3b24531c050127035217717af5@mail.gmail.com> Reply-To: LVM general discussion and development List-Id: LVM general discussion and development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-lvm@redhat.com On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 05:52:57AM -0600, Myrddin Emrys wrote: >It appears that one PE can only hold a single file. Since my PE size >is 16MB, that means that the files on my LVM array are... well, less >than efficiently packed. What puzzles me is that this fact is never this is not true, there is no relation between PE size and filesystem. i wonder were you got this impression. Regards, L. -- Luca Berra -- bluca@comedia.it Communication Media & Services S.r.l. /"\ \ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN X AGAINST HTML MAIL / \