On Friday 21 February 2003 10:53 am, Net Llama! wrote: > Errrr...roger, this it the 8th copy of this that i've received from > you today.
Only one copy here.... > > On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, Roger Oberholtzer wrote: > > This is interesting: > > > > When I have some images (over 587000 of them) on a ext3-format > > partition, they take 19737878 bytes (19.7 GB). When these same files > > are on a vfat partition, they take 27154592 (27.1 GB). Same images. > > Just copied freshly to the windows disk, so there is no > > fragmentation. > > > > I guess this is because linux file systems (all?) only take roughly > > the space needed for each file, no matter what the size. Windows > > vfat takes 64K for each file, even if it is 1 byte in size. The > > images are mainly under 64K, so the amount of each file that is > > under 64 K is wasted on the disk by windows. > > > > And you wonder why we don't like windows. And disk sellers love it. > > > > Of course, NTFS is supposed to be better about this, but I won't > > test it. -- +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ + Bruce S. Marshall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bellaire, MI 02/21/03 11:14 + +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ "Rivers in the United States are so polluted that acid rain makes them cleaner." - Andrew Malcolm _______________________________________________ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
