Corinna Vinschen wrote: > I did the same here and I've added the block count which shows how much > blocks has been wasted by being a sparse file: > > 188 -rwxr-xr-x 1 corinna root 191765 Jun 6 09:55 ./ftp/ftp.exe > Sparse bit 200 > 497 -rwxr-xr-x 1 corinna root 508186 Jun 6 09:55 ./ftpd/ftpd.exe > Sparse bit 200 > 748 -rwxr-xr-x 1 corinna root 765264 Jun 6 09:55 ./inetd/inetd.exe > Sparse bit 200 ... > So there's no waste of blocks at all.
In my testing of sparse files, I found that the extra disc usage did not appear to be reported in Explorer File Properties "Size on Disc", but was visible in the overall Disc Properties, by looking at the change in free space. I'm not saying blocks are definitely being wasted in the above case - just that the data above does not conclusively prove that there is no waste. I have no time right now, but I will try a test using df to investigate this later. Max. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
