Why do you want a 512 byte block file system anyway?

[Heiko Blume]

tim at delluk.uucp (Tim Wright) writes:
>aab at cichlid.com (Andy Burgess) writes:
>>src at scuzzy.in-berlin.de (Heiko Blume) writes:
>>>p.s.: i want a 512Byte filesystem for news, so speed is not an issue.

>>I just did an ls -l /usr/spool/news/comp/unix/sysv386 and I didn't see one
>>file less then 512 bytes long. Most (estimate 90%) were over 1024 bytes
>>long. Doesn't this mean 512 byte block buys you nothing?

>Reduced waste of space due to wasting on average 1/4K in the last block
>instead of 1/2K.

you bet! i did a little statistic:

size   | count
-------+------
<= 512 : 3665
<= 1024: 10524
<= 1536: 12610
<= 2048: 7784
>= 2048: 12411
total  : 46994

savings on 23790 files
no savings on 23204 files

i'd have >12MB more space with a 512Byte filesystem!
which yields quite a percentage (~15%) for a 76MB filesystem...

>I think the original problem may have been down to not
>specifying the FSTYPE to fsck and mount - they may not autodetect - I can't
>remember for sure. 

the manual says: if you don't specify the type and it fails to mount
it as the root fstype it will try to find out with /etc/fstyp. but
that yields S51K....
as i haven't found any fs types other than S51K, S52K, XENIX and DOS,
what shall i tell mount ??
-- 
      Heiko Blume <-+-> src at scuzzy.in-berlin.de <-+-> (+49 30) 691 88 93
                    public source archive [HST V.42bis]:
        scuzzy Any ACU,f 38400 6919520 gin:--gin: nuucp sword: nuucp
                     uucp scuzzy!/src/README /your/home