On 20/12/2018 19.39, Luciano ES wrote: > On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 11:32:33 -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > >> but ok, I missed that you had 2k blocks on your backup disk.... I >> don't really know what you're trying to do here, TBH. > > Smaller blocks waste less space. In ext3/4, I've always used 2k or > even 1k blocks. It does save space. Doesn't it in XFS too? Depends. Not always "smaller blocks waste less space". It depends on the mix of filesizes. If most files are big, then no. Consider, for instance, that in a filesystem with a fixed number of inodes (like ext2/3/4), when using small blocks the structures that list the blocks are larger, simply because there are more blocks. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 42.3 x86_64 "Malachite" at Telcontar)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
