On 23/02/17 14:33, Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 02/22/2017 07:02 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
Without knowing what the OP's file system but assuming he too is
using EXT4, what would the directory be storing that's so different
from mine?
a bajillion small files vs a few large ones.
Not to be ped
On 02/22/2017 07:02 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
Without knowing what the OP's file system but assuming he too is
using EXT4, what would the directory be storing that's so different
from mine?
a bajillion small files vs a few large ones.
Not to be pedantic, but the size of a directory has not
On 2/22/2017 5:51 PM, Anthony K wrote:
However, I was trying to compare my system with the OP's and noticed
that I have a directory with >2TB of used capacity in a folder sized
~36kb - a 56793929:1. In the OP's situation, he has a directory with
~2.8MB of used capacity in a folder sized ~2MB
On 02/22/2017 12:27 PM, Anthony K wrote:
On 23/02/17 06:04, John R Pierce wrote:
on many modern file systems, larger directories are stored as some
sort of B-Tree or hash tree, so there's quite a lot of indexing data
in there along with the actual directory entries
So I gather this depends on
On 23/02/17 07:42, John R Pierce wrote:
On 2/22/2017 12:27 PM, Anthony K wrote:
On my ext4 file system, I have a directory that has >2TB and the
directory entry itself only shows:
$ ls -ld Stuff
drwxrwxr-x 146 akk akk 36864 Feb 21 21:18 Stuff/
$ du -bs Stuff
2093651427987Stuff
ls -ld
On 02/22/2017 12:45 PM, Jason Welsh wrote:
So its normal behavior.. thanks!
Jason
On 02/22/2017 01:40 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 02/22/2017 06:34 AM, Jason Welsh wrote:
How does the directory *itself* have a size of 2.8 megs?
If you write a large number of directory entries in a direct
On 2/22/2017 12:27 PM, Anthony K wrote:
On my ext4 file system, I have a directory that has >2TB and the
directory entry itself only shows:
$ ls -ld Stuff
drwxrwxr-x 146 akk akk 36864 Feb 21 21:18 Stuff/
$ du -bs Stuff
2093651427987Stuff
ls -ld is showing the size of the actual direct
On Thu, 23 Feb 2017 07:27:05 +1100
Anthony K wrote:
> On 23/02/17 06:04, John R Pierce wrote:
> > on many modern file systems, larger directories are stored as some
> > sort of B-Tree or hash tree, so there's quite a lot of indexing
> > data in there along with the actual directory entries
>
On 23/02/17 06:04, John R Pierce wrote:
on many modern file systems, larger directories are stored as some
sort of B-Tree or hash tree, so there's quite a lot of indexing data
in there along with the actual directory entries
So I gather this depends on the file system.
On my ext4 file system,
On 2/22/2017 10:40 AM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 02/22/2017 06:34 AM, Jason Welsh wrote:
How does the directory *itself* have a size of 2.8 megs?
If you write a large number of directory entries in a directory, the
directory will grow in order to provide storage for those directory
entries.
So its normal behavior.. thanks!
Jason
On 02/22/2017 01:40 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 02/22/2017 06:34 AM, Jason Welsh wrote:
How does the directory *itself* have a size of 2.8 megs?
If you write a large number of directory entries in a directory, the
directory will grow in order to pr
On 02/22/2017 06:34 AM, Jason Welsh wrote:
How does the directory *itself* have a size of 2.8 megs?
If you write a large number of directory entries in a directory, the
directory will grow in order to provide storage for those directory
entries. You can imagine a directory as a text file co
on a CentOS release 6.8 (Final)
I was looking around and noticed the following in a directory.
[jason@server /app-vol/applications/]$ls -ld temp
drwxr-xr-x 4 jason users 2899968 Feb 18 06:31 temp/
[jason@server /app-vol/applications/]$
How does the directory *itself* have a size of 2.8 megs?
ye
13 matches
Mail list logo
