On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:26:59 -0400 Richard Elling <richard.ell...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > That seems to differ quite a bit from what I've seen; perhaps I am > > misunderstanding... is the "+ 1 block" of a different size than the > > recordsize? With recordsize=1k: > > > > $ ls -ls foo > > 2261 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1048576 Sep 22 10:59 foo > > Well, there it is. I suggest suitable guard bands. So, you would say it's reasonable to assume the overhead will always be less than about 100k or 10%? And to be sure... if we're to be rounding up to the next recordsize boundary, are we guaranteed to be able to get the from the blocksize reported by statvfs? -- Andrew Deason adea...@sinenomine.net _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
