Pieter De Wit insync.za.net> writes:
> What is the underlying file system, ext4 ? I wonder if it will be worth
> trying this on XFS, perhaps it behaves better with newer Windows clients
> ? Is this an option for you ?
Hi Pieter!
Yes i'm using ext4 but since the file transferring was done on a t
On 17/12/2012 21:07, Berni CED wrote:
Berni Ced bernispa.com> writes:
For example, i've analized the data copied with strict allocation
activated and i've found that Windows Server 2008 make files space
allocation in 1024 kiB blocks.
Err, i meant Windows Server 2003, not 2008.
In the meantime
Berni CED bernispa.com> writes:
> Also, do you know a command that can restore back the 11 MB wasted in the
> latter two cases?
Obviously, having enough space, i can make a copy of the entire folder hosting
the share:
cp -a origin-folder dest-folder
But my question is if there is a command i can
Berni Ced bernispa.com> writes:
> For example, i've analized the data copied with strict allocation
> activated and i've found that Windows Server 2008 make files space
> allocation in 1024 kiB blocks.
Err, i meant Windows Server 2003, not 2008.
In the meantime i've tested that Windows 7 behave
Hi Bjoern and thank you for your reply.
Bjoern Baumbach sernet.de> writes:
> This is by design.
> With the strict allocate = yes Samba stops creating sparse files. If you
> copy a sparse file with a real size of e.g. 100MB and a
> reserved/allocated size of 1GB to a server with "strict allocate =
Dear Cesare,
On 12/14/2012 03:51 PM, Berni CED wrote:
>> > I've retried commenting out this line and repeating the entire copy with
>> > robocopy: now the disk usage corresponds to the one reported by Windows
>> > and by
>> > "du -s -h --apparent-size".
> To summarize, in my case "strict allocate
Berni CED bernispa.com> writes:
> Berni CED bernispa.com> writes:
> > strict allocate = yes
>
> I've retried commenting out this line and repeating the entire copy with
> robocopy: now the disk usage corresponds to the one reported by Windows and by
> "du -s -h --apparent-size".
To summari
Berni CED bernispa.com> writes:
> strict allocate = yes
I've retried commenting out this line and repeating the entire copy with
robocopy: now the disk usage corresponds to the one reported by Windows and by
"du -s -h --apparent-size".
Are there any technical reason for that? Should i file a
(I'm not subscribed to the list: please keep me in CC)
I'm copying files between two samba server using robocopy from a third
Windows PC and i'm experiencing disk usage that is much higher on the
destination PC.
The origin samba server is Debian Lenny with samba 3.2.5.
The destination samba s
