On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 8:49 AM Rocky Bernstein <ro...@gnu.org> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 7:23 AM Thomas Schmitt <scdbac...@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Rocky Bernstein wrote: >> > Here is a suggestion - in that branch add the new ISO image that you >> created. >> > And then add a new test for this feature. >> >> It seems easiest to extend test "check_multiextent.sh". >> (The main obstacle which gave me riddles was missing TZ=CUT when i >> created multiextent_joliet.right.) >> >> The Joliet test ISO is significantly smaller than the old one for >> Rock Ridge: >> -rw-r--r-- 1 . . 524288 Jun 17 2020 test/data/multi_extent_8k.iso >> -rw-r--r-- 1 . . 122880 Mar 27 10:56 >> test/data/multi_extent_8k_joliet.iso >> But strangely du says that it uses more disk space on ext4: >> 100 test/data/multi_extent_8k.iso >> 120 test/data/multi_extent_8k_joliet.iso >> I guess this is the effect of sparse file storing. But i am not aware that >> i ever gave multi_extent_8k.iso a special treatment back in 2018. >> Is git known to work with sparse file generating seeks when checking out >> files ? >> >> >> The old multi_extent_8k.iso is nominally so much larger, because i >> obviously did not apply space saving options when creating it: >> 64+ KiB are used for multi-session TOC emulation. 300 KiB are trailing >> padding against the Linux TAO CD bug. >> >> I could create it freshly with 122880 bytes. Shall i do ? >> > > Sure, try that or try creating a different image. BTW, when creating ISO > images please try to use the smallest amount of data that will do the job. > Actually, a new image is better. We want to be able to handle historical images that were not created optimally. > > >> >> >> Have a nice day :) >> >> Thomas >> >> >>
