From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon May 7 18:32:27 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B41516A409 for ; Mon, 7 May 2007 18:32:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from josh@tcbug.org) Received: from conn-smtp.mc.mpls.visi.com (conn.mc.mpls.visi.com [208.42.156.2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E816413C4C7 for ; Mon, 7 May 2007 18:32:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from josh@tcbug.org) Received: from services.tcbug.org (softlink-dsl-host82.dsl.visi.com [208.42.148.82]) by conn-smtp.mc.mpls.visi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D9D5821D; Mon, 7 May 2007 13:32:26 -0500 (CDT) Received: by services.tcbug.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 9C46A9B429; Mon, 7 May 2007 13:33:59 -0500 (CDT) Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 13:33:59 -0500 From: Josh Paetzel To: jhall@vandaliamo.net Message-ID: <20070507183359.GH59486@tcbug.org> Mail-Followup-To: jhall@vandaliamo.net, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: <2231.12.170.206.13.1178552682.squirrel@admintool.trueband.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2231.12.170.206.13.1178552682.squirrel@admintool.trueband.net> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: mkisofs and file size X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Josh Paetzel List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 18:32:27 -0000 jhall@vandaliamo.net wrote: > I am in the process of creating a bootable CD for the offices I maintain > to hopefully make upgrades easier in the future. > > At this point in time /dev/ad0s1a (where the root partition is located) > has 13% of 512 MB. > > When I create the ISO image, it is twice the size it was under FBSD 6.1. > > Comparing the file sizes between the files on FBSD 6.1 and 6.2, they > appear to be the same. I looked at sizes at the root directory, but did > not go any further. > > Has anyone else encountered this type of issue? > > Thanks, > > > Jay > > Perhaps the hardlinks in /rescue aren't getting preserved? That will chew up a few hundred megs. -- Thanks, Josh Paetzel