Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Message-ID: <009001c31d93$b61d08e0$78d96f83@pomello> From: "Max Bowsher" To: , References: <16072 DOT 892 DOT 778395 DOT 24290 AT gargle DOT gargle DOT HOWL> Subject: Re: SPARSE files considered harmful - please revert Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 00:17:54 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Martin Buchholz wrote: > As a result, a non-empty but small sparse file takes up a minimum of > 16*clustersize bytes on the disk. My measurements suggest an overhead > of 32kb per file with a cluster size of 4kb. I just thought I'd throw a few more numbers into the debate: I patched Cygwin to respond to CYGWIN=sparse / CYGWIN=nosparse Then, I did a cvs co winsup: "Size on disc" of checked out dir, as shown in Windows properties box: Sparse: 40.7MB Not sparse: 43.6MB OK, so sparse seems to win? But that makes no sense - backed up by noting that for various individual sparse files, "Size on disc" is reporting a size which is not an integer number of clusters. Now, Properties of disc, look at "Used space": Difference in creating sparse checkout: ~ 200MB !!! Difference in creating normal checkout: ~ 40MB Personally, I'm inclined to trust the overall disc stats more. I think this evidence suggests that sparse files should NOT be on by default in Cygwin. Max. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/