From: <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Message-Id: <200301011428.h01ESxm14873@speedy.ludd.luth.se>
Subject: Re: Problem with df reporting the wrong sizes [PATCH]
In-Reply-To: <10212311741.AA01665@clio.rice.edu> "from Charles Sandmann at Dec
 31, 2002 11:41:26 am"
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 15:28:59 +0100 (CET)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL78 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-SpamScore: s
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

According to Charles Sandmann:
> I am more worried about compatibility and correct values than showing
> some DOS specific sector size.  Don't all unix-like OSes use 512 or 1024
> for block sizes?  Do they assume they are the same for all disks?  Do
> all of our calls (from stat, fstat, statvfs, etc) return the same value?

If you're talking about harware block sizes, yes. Plus 2048 for
cdroms. What choice would the OSes have?

If you're talking about file system block size, no. 4096 seem to be
relatively common. But as you choose the block size when you create
the file system there are no set block size. (I'm mainly thinking of
ext2 here, but other ones should be similar.) Then I wouldn't be
surprised of there is a file system or two that have a variable block
size; there're all sorts out there.

Or perhaps you're talking about yet another block size?


Right,

						MartinS