Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!wb3ffv!ka3ovk!raysnec!shwake
From: shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: Why do you want a 512 byte block file system anyway?
Message-ID: <158@raysnec.UUCP>
Date: 28 Nov 90 15:12:18 GMT
References: <1990Nov18.182135.17954@scuzzy.in-berlin.de> <1990Nov19.232124.7802@cichlid.com> <tim.659123519@holly>
Distribution: comp
Organization: IRS/CI - Technical Solutions Branch
Lines: 14

tim@delluk.uucp (Tim Wright) writes:

>Reduced waste of space due to wasting on average 1/4K in the last block
>instead of 1/2K. I think the original problem may have been down to not
>specifying the FSTYPE to fsck and mount - they may not autodetect - I can't
>remember for sure. I might try it some time if I get a disk with some
>room on it :-)

	While the 1/4K figure might appear to be intuitive, running fsanalyze
on my small ISC 2.2 system showed waste due to unfilled blocks to be less
than 4% for root, 7% for /usr and /usr2. I'd done a few spot checks some
time back to validate these figures, and they seemed to be on target.
Assuming these figures are anywhere near the actual, the performance boost
from a 1K block file system makes for a clear win.