Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!


Click here to return to the 'what about minimum block size?' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
what about minimum block size?
Authored by: schaps on May 29, '05 11:18:42AM

My reasons for partitioning before was the minimum block size-- partitioning created smaller blocks. I would think with all the thousands of itsy bitsy files that *nix based OSes have, this would still be a reason to partition. You seem rather worked up about this, so please note I am not challenging you, I am attempting to improve my knowledge. Please let me know what you think.



[ Reply to This | # ]
what about minimum block size?
Authored by: derrickbass on May 29, '05 10:28:28PM

The minimum block size is 4K on HFS+ disks (well, it can be chosen differently when you format the disk, but I've never seen that happen). In the days of HFS, you could only have a maximum of 65536 blocks on a disk, so the bigger the disk, the bigger the block size. But no such limitation is present on HFS+ disks.



[ Reply to This | # ]
what about minimum block size?
Authored by: schaps on May 30, '05 12:05:17AM

thanks-- did not know that!



[ Reply to This | # ]
what about minimum block size?
Authored by: axello on May 30, '05 03:08:23AM

Actually, there is a limit to the number of files on an HFS+ disk. It is 2^32, so around 4.29 billion.
The biggest volume you can access with 4 KB blocks is thus 16 TB. We should approach that in a couple of years.



[ Reply to This | # ]