-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ok, so does that mean no sub-allocation at all or only sub-allocation of tails (like Netware's FS) Joshua b. Jore Minneapolis Ward 3, precinct 10 http://www.greentechnologist.org On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, Mike Hicks wrote: > "Joshua b. Jore" <josh at kitten.greentechnologist.org> wrote: > > > > I'm going to eventually eventually send this stuff out to CDR so I can > > free the machine back up and recover data at my leisure. What I'm > > wondering is if I'm going to run into some sort of limiting factors in > > ext2 or iso9660 in the process. My ext2 partition is formatted with the > > default 4K blocks so does that mean that *every* file occupies that much > > space or are the blocks sub-allocated? > > ext2 does not do sub-allocation in filesystem blocks, as far as I know. > ReiserFS does (and it should do it pretty well), and some of the other > filesystems around these days probably do. > > I suppose you could create a loopback filesystem with smaller block sizes > or a different filesystem if you want to try to get around that problem > without repartitioning and reformatting. > > -- > _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ ___ _ _ __ Many are called, few > / \/ \(_)| ' // ._\ / - \(_)/ ./| ' /(__ volunteer. > \_||_/|_||_|_\\___/ \_-_/|_|\__\|_|_\ __) > [ Mike Hicks | http://umn.edu/~hick0088/ | mailto:hick0088 at tc.umn.edu ] > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (OpenBSD) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8EZP0fexLsowstzcRAtbNAJ44l1Dom/w4KmYHOZrfIKzQrJq6tACdGIE+ n0vkFGkyoXbMQG64xeHpt7A= =VMIl -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----