R. Clayton wrote: > <<--deleted background details-- > > $ ls --block-size=1k -ls > total 896 > 64 -rwxr-xr-x 1 rclayton rclayton 18 2010-03-23 14:42 branniga.htm > 64 -rwxr-xr-x 1 rclayton rclayton 3 2010-03-23 14:42 fig1.gif > 64 -rwxr-xr-x 1 rclayton rclayton 1 2010-03-23 14:42 fig1.htm > 64 -rwxr-xr-x 1 rclayton rclayton 3 2010-03-23 14:42 fig2.gif > 64 -rwxr-xr-x 1 rclayton rclayton 1 2010-03-23 14:42 fig2.htm > 64 -rwxr-xr-x 1 rclayton rclayton 3 2010-03-23 14:42 fig3.gif > 64 -rwxr-xr-x 1 rclayton rclayton 1 2010-03-23 14:42 fig3.htm > 64 -rwxr-xr-x 1 rclayton rclayton 6 2010-03-23 14:42 fig4.gif > 64 -rwxr-xr-x 1 rclayton rclayton 1 2010-03-23 14:42 fig4.htm > 64 -rwxr-xr-x 1 rclayton rclayton 5 2010-03-23 14:42 fig5.gif > 64 -rwxr-xr-x 1 rclayton rclayton 1 2010-03-23 14:42 fig5.htm > 64 -rwxr-xr-x 1 rclayton rclayton 7 2010-03-23 14:42 fig6.gif > 64 -rwxr-xr-x 1 rclayton rclayton 1 2010-03-23 14:42 fig6.htm > 64 -rwxr-xr-x 1 rclayton rclayton 5 2010-03-23 14:42 list1.htm > > $ cd /home/dr-dobbs/articles/CUJ/1990/9001/branniga > > $ ls --block-size=1k -ls > total 88 > 20 -r-x------ 1 rclayton rclayton 18 2010-03-21 08:32 branniga.htm > 4 -r-x------ 1 rclayton rclayton 3 2010-03-21 08:32 fig1.gif > 4 -r-x------ 1 rclayton rclayton 1 2010-03-21 08:32 fig1.htm > 4 -r-x------ 1 rclayton rclayton 3 2010-03-21 08:32 fig2.gif > 4 -r-x------ 1 rclayton rclayton 1 2010-03-21 08:32 fig2.htm > 4 -r-x------ 1 rclayton rclayton 3 2010-03-21 08:32 fig3.gif > 4 -r-x------ 1 rclayton rclayton 1 2010-03-21 08:32 fig3.htm > 8 -r-x------ 1 rclayton rclayton 6 2010-03-21 08:32 fig4.gif > 4 -r-x------ 1 rclayton rclayton 1 2010-03-21 08:32 fig4.htm > 8 -r-x------ 1 rclayton rclayton 5 2010-03-21 08:32 fig5.gif > 4 -r-x------ 1 rclayton rclayton 1 2010-03-21 08:32 fig5.htm > 8 -r-x------ 1 rclayton rclayton 7 2010-03-21 08:32 fig6.gif > 4 -r-x------ 1 rclayton rclayton 1 2010-03-21 08:32 fig6.htm > 8 -r-x------ 1 rclayton rclayton 5 2010-03-21 08:32 list1.htm > > $ > > which meant my thumb drive space was getting eaten up by internal > fragmentation. I understand that flash storage has special needs for most > efficient operation, but are block-size overages of an order-of-magnitude or > more really necessary? Can I remake the file system with smaller block sizes? > How? (It is unclear to me if sector size is the same as file block size.) > What bad things happen to flash storage if the file system has 1k block size? > > This happened on a debian testing system updated weekly. > >
Curious ... I have a 4G flash drive and have had no issues with it, except for file deletion using a GUI file manager. And you didn't mention if the stick you're using was brand new/never used or not. If you've had files on it and then deleted them using a GUI file browser, it may have simply moved them to a hidden trash folder, which would not free up any space. But you may have already checked that ;) I tried the 'ls' command you used on my flash drive, and got this: $ ls --block-size=1k -ls total 23024 500 -rwxrwxr-x 1 root backup 498 2010-02-22 18:11 C1.jpg 644 -rwxrwxr-x 1 root backup 643 2010-02-22 18:11 C2.jpg 1160 -rwxrwxr-x 1 root backup 1159 2010-02-22 18:11 C3.jpg 852 -rwxrwxr-x 1 root backup 852 2010-02-22 18:11 C4.jpg 4896 -rwxrwxr-x 1 root backup 4895 2010-03-07 10:36 C5.jpg 3564 -rwxrwxr-x 1 root backup 3561 2010-03-07 10:45 C6.jpg 416 -rwxrwxr-x 1 root backup 416 2010-03-14 16:35 C7.jpg 5076 -rwxrwxr-x 1 root backup 5076 2010-03-13 02:43 C8.jpg 5916 -rwxrwxr-x 1 root backup 5913 2010-03-13 03:04 C9.jpg And ... $ ls --block-size=8k -ls total 2878 63 -rwxrwxr-x 1 root backup 63 2010-02-22 18:11 C1.jpg 81 -rwxrwxr-x 1 root backup 81 2010-02-22 18:11 C2.jpg 145 -rwxrwxr-x 1 root backup 145 2010-02-22 18:11 C3.jpg 107 -rwxrwxr-x 1 root backup 107 2010-02-22 18:11 C4.jpg 612 -rwxrwxr-x 1 root backup 612 2010-03-07 10:36 C5.jpg 446 -rwxrwxr-x 1 root backup 446 2010-03-07 10:45 C6.jpg 52 -rwxrwxr-x 1 root backup 52 2010-03-14 16:35 C7.jpg 635 -rwxrwxr-x 1 root backup 635 2010-03-13 02:43 C8.jpg 740 -rwxrwxr-x 1 root backup 740 2010-03-13 03:04 C9.jpg It looks like the numbers are matching up OK (at least on my system - ls --version says "ls (GNU coreutils) 5.97" and still using etch [4.0]). A couple of other differences: My flash drive has no partition table, the filesystem is built on the base device, like a floppy disk. And, I used VFAT for the filesystem type: $ mount|grep sde /dev/sde on /var/autofs/usb/centon type vfat ... I don't know if any of this is really helpful, though it may suggest an alternative or two to play around with. -- Bob McGowan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4baa46dd.90...@symantec.com
