On Thu, 8 Apr 1999, George Bonser wrote: > On Thu, 8 Apr 1999, Bruce Sass wrote: > > > Why is ext2 wasteful of disk space? > > Backup superblock, inode table, space reserved for root, etc.
Re: superblocks, we'll just have to wait until "-s, sparse superblocks" works properly (2.2.x kernels?). The inode table(s) gets us the ext2 features we like, right. "-m 0" reserves NO space. > Test it yourself. Make a filesystem both ways and do a df and see how > much available space you have. I'm not arguing that ext2 doesn't have more overhead, just wondering how significant it is and what we get for it. (plus, I'd have to download and install mtools to put a msdos filesystem on a 1920k floppy) Can MS OS's read 1920k disks? > > I usually format to 1920k > > (83 tracks doesn't always work for me, so I don't use 1992k). > > > > The larger block size and reserved space can be looked after with > > "mke2fs -b 512 -m 0 ...", and if it makes much difference you can even > > change the bytes per inode ratio with the "-i" option. > > > > I find the "lost+found" feature to be worth losing 12k over > > (a good technical reason to use ext2?). > > Not yet. Besides, you have no control over how the disk is formatted. With > superformat you can squeeze more space out of the disk. In other words. If > you had an unformatted disk you would STILL have to run superformat to do > the low level format. This doesn't make any sense to me George, maybe I missed your point. > I NEVER EVER EVER trust a floppy that was not freshly low-level formatted. > You can not do this with mke2fs. You will end up with unreliable > diskettes. I wrote a script that prompts me for the size of floppy I want (1760k for faster access, 1920k for more space), calls superformat, then calls mke2fs (takes options from the command line, defaults to "-m 0"). Making a disk is a simple "mkfd <Enter>", followed by a single digit and <Enter>. 7 key presses (I only have one floppy drive, but supporting more would only require another two key presses). - Bruce
