From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 23:00:31 +0100 From: tlaronde@polynum.com To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Message-ID: <20120113220031.GA421@polynum.com> References: <20120110024048.GA407@polynum.com> <20120109232333.1d847e92@gmail.com> <20120110171129.GD344@polynum.com> <20120110144719.2c67cd9e@wks-ddc.exosec.local> <20120113183323.GA971@polynum.com> <20120112222919.0bb0c261@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120112222919.0bb0c261@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Subject: Re: [9fans] fossil (again) Topicbox-Message-UUID: 59d22c18-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 10:29:19PM +0100, David du Colombier wrote: > > You should probably try to compare with "du -sh". BTW, I have "played" with du(1) since it answers partially (Erik gave data) about the optimization of blocksize. Namely the "-b" option. If I understand correctly, this does take only "data" block, so no inode or whatever, but may give a clue about the optimization of blocksize. So: term% du -s / 364996379 / term% du -s -b 2048 / 365017964 / term% du -s -b 8192 / 365080272 / term% du -s -b 512 / 365002735 / Well... on this partial evaluation, the winner is 1024, but for 80k, not a lot to shout about. For the occupation of fossil, with 8kb: fsys blocks: total=126524 used=92045(72.7%) free=34464(27.2%) lost=15(0.0%) So I have roughly twice the size of files in fossil occupation: fossil, 754 Mb, for 365 Mb of "real" data. I don't get it! -- Thierry Laronde http://www.kergis.com/ Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89 250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C