Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 13:27:13 +1000 From: "Andrew Reilly" <andrew@lake.com.au> To: Darryl Okahata <darrylo@sr.hp.com> Cc: Thomas David Rivers <rivers@dignus.com>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Adding desktop support (please don't) Message-ID: <19990429132713.A38300@gurney.reilly.home> In-Reply-To: <199904290318.UAA24935@mina.sr.hp.com>; from Darryl Okahata on Wed, Apr 28, 1999 at 08:18:39PM -0700 References: <199904290035.UAA18606@lakes.dignus.com> <199904290318.UAA24935@mina.sr.hp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Apr 28, 1999 at 08:18:39PM -0700, Darryl Okahata wrote: > Well, not quite. The icon by itself consumes one filesystem > fragment (default 1K). The system allocates space for files in chunks > of disks (one "fragment", if I understand how the FFS works, which I may > not). Your 10 byte file is now occupying an additional 1K. This sounds like an argument for file system use profiling and tweaking to me. We already have an optimisation for symlinks of a certain size that can reside directly in the inode (replacing the indirect pointers). Perhaps icons can do that too. I believe (memory is rusty) that the RISC-OS file system was optimised for small files in this way, too. -- Andrew To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990429132713.A38300>