Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site decuac.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!decuac!avolio
From: avolio@decuac.UUCP (Frederick M. Avolio)
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: Unix physical block size
Message-ID: <707@decuac.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 27-Nov-85 07:52:00 EST
Article-I.D.: decuac.707
Posted: Wed Nov 27 07:52:00 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 28-Nov-85 04:45:33 EST
References: <298@weitek.UUCP> <228@polaris.UUCP> <942@wcom.UUCP> <701@petrus.UUCP> <1638@cbosgd.UUCP>
Organization: ULTRIX Applications Center, MD
Lines: 16

In article <1638@cbosgd.UUCP>, mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) writes:
> Unfortunately, in System V, the number 512 is thoroughly embedded into
> nearly all levels of the system. ...
> Berkeley has attempted to change the units that people think in to "K", e.g.
> 1024 bytes. ...
> The filesystems do work in bigger units, and this produces significant
> speedups.  System V typically does disk transfers in units of 1K ...
> 4.2BSD is similar, although it does 4K or 8K transfers ...

But there are still hard-coded "blocksizes" independant of what one
defines a file system block size at newfs time in 4.2BSD.  If one sets up
quotas, the format is to give disk use restrictions in "blocks." But
what is really meant is "1024 bytes" since even if my block size is
8192, edquota still wants number of blocks assuming a 1024 byte block.
-- 
Fred @ DEC Ultrix Applications Center    {decvax,seismo,cbosgd}!decuac!avolio