[ILUG] Reiserfs storage efficiency
wesley at blackstar.co.uk
Fri Dec 29 17:37:47 GMT 2000
On Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 03:55:52PM +0000, Niall O Broin wrote:
> It was my understanding that one of the advantages of Reiserfs was its
> storage efficiency, although that wasn't the primary reason I switched to
> it. However, I was about to remove an unused 1GB SCSI disk from a box which
> had some data I wanted. I copied it (using find|cpio) to a reiser filesystem
Why find|cpio? What's wrong with "cp -a"? (I'm just curious here, mind - I'm
not being antagonistic! ;-)
> and to my astonishment, du -s on the directory I copied it to showed 1.3GB
> used. Output from du -s * is below
> dir ext2 reiser
> bin 3571 3702
> boot 1907 1920
> dev 39 5416
> etc 2751 6350
> home 73160 78721
> lib 12592 13029
> opt 368728 717420
> root 3539 5613
> sbin 2870 3023
> tmp 635 629
> usr 475915 531540
> var 23835 22647
> www 8128 9414
> It seems that the minimum space used by a file on a reiser fs is much more
> than that on an ext2 fs (1k blocks) - opt is particularly bad, because there
> I have a local copy of the cddb database, which has > 125000 files, most of
> which are small (< 2k).
Ext2 filesystems with 1k blocks are quite rare these days, no?
> Any of you other reiser users seen anything like this or have any ideas
> about this ?
Was the filesystem mounted with the `notails' option when you copied all
that stuff onto it? If this is all one filesystem, and you have /boot on it,
chances are you will have it mounted `notails'...? (Which would explain
the awful disk usage, as bad as ext2 with 4kB blocks and a 32MB overhead.)
> P.S. It's 2.2.16 with the reiserfs-3.5.23 patch.
I use 3.5.28 these days with 2.2.18. Seems to work fine.
More information about the ILUG