JEMF <jemf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Daniel Pittman escreveu: >> JEMF <jemf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>>Why? Geometry? >> Yup; when the flash device pretends to have geometry so that it doesn't >> confuse software that still lives in DOS land, it caused that. > > How the system calculate this geometry? Basically, magic. Seriously, there are a bunch of heuristics, or it can come from the DOS partition table, or from the BIOS, but it really is pretty much just invented in (hopefully) the same way that DOS-ish operating systems and the BIOS will do, so they also work. >>>I think 8239 KB (8.05 MB) was used by journal. But the amount of blocks >>>decreased after formatted (471665 to 456730). Why? >> The difference, of around 23,000 blocks, is five percent of the >> available space on the filesystem. > > No! The difference is 14935 blocks! I mentioned in the previous message > the difference between sizes of the unformatted partition and formated > partition. You are right -- my mental math is broken this morning. I approximated five percent in my head, then managed to miss-subtract the two numbers to make them match. How embarrassing. :/ My expectation would be that the difference is caused by filesystem meta-data, such as inode allocation tables, which consume some storage space on the raw device, but are not available for file storage. The ext3 file system uses fixed size and location tables, so that space is consumed irregardless of the space used for files. Daniel _______________________________________________ Ext3-users@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ext3-users
