|
|
|
|
|
by Dylan16807
505 days ago
|
|
> The poster with the inode problem in the subthread I replied to said "many small files" and "millions of small files", not "a small number of inodes". I quoted the paper. I said nothing about OP. > Though source trees often are smaller than 16kB/inode, so the advice to decrease inode allocation just to save a fraction of 1.6% of space may not be too good. For drives that aren't going to have tons of uncompiled source trees, more than a percent is a lot. That could be a hundred gigabytes wasted. Almost any drive that isn't a small OS partition can do just fine at .4 or .2 percent. |
|
That passage is in context of a billion inodes though, where it is a small number by comparison. It's obviously calling it a small number by some absolute or objective standard.
> For drives that aren't going to have tons of uncompiled source trees, more than a percent is a lot. That could be a hundred gigabytes wasted. Almost any drive that isn't a small OS partition can do just fine at .4 or .2 percent.
If you have 10TB then saving 80GB isn't really a lot at all. It's about 0.8%. You really wouldn't recommend an average user change that at all. If they were desperate for a few more GB you might drop the reserved % down a couple of points first which is already more than entire inode allocation.