On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 09:07:14AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 09:29:28AM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote: >>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 extended Pierre's program to report on disk space used versus size on disk. >AFAICT, the files produced by ld are actually consuming less space on disk >than reported by ls, thanks to their sparseness.
Nevermind. I was testing in a directory where I'd set the compression bit on. So much for my trustworthiness... cgf -- 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/
