home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!dtix!darwin.sura.net!rsg1.er.usgs.gov!ornl!rm3
- From: rm3@ornl.gov (MCBROOM R C)
- Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
- Subject: Re: EA DATA. SF file size
- Message-ID: <1992Aug31.145943.4697@ornl.gov>
- Date: 31 Aug 92 14:59:43 GMT
- References: <1992Aug25.192458.21679@ni.umd.edu> <1992Aug25.210634.143339@zeus.calpoly.edu>
- Organization: Oak Ridge National Laboratory
- Lines: 31
-
- In article <1992Aug25.210634.143339@zeus.calpoly.edu> jemenake@zeus.calpoly.edu (Joe Emenaker) writes:
- >In article <1992Aug25.192458.21679@ni.umd.edu> dan@ni.umd.edu (Dan Burns) writes:
- >>
- >>I have a PS/2 Model 80 with a 330 meg hard disk the with over 250 megs of
- >>disk space used (mostly old dos stuff), that I have OS/2 installed on using
- >>a FAT system and dual-boot. My EA_DATA._SF is over 11 Meg in size right now
- >>(11059200 byte). Is this normal? At home I have a 35 meg HPFS system and
- >>140 Meg FAT system (on the same disk), and the file is just over 110K.
- >>
- >>Is something wrong here? I am using kernal revision 6.311 dated 92/05/14.
- >
- >Well, my understanding is that the EA_DATA file has the extended attributes
- >for the FILES on your hard disk, so the size should be more proportional to
- >the NUMBER of files on your HD rather than their total size. On my machine,
- >I've got about 2000 files and my EA_DATA is a little over a meg. That comes
- >to about 500 bytes per file. Sounds reasonable since I heard that the
- >EA_DATA is used to store the icons from your OS/2 and Windows EXEs.
- >
- >My advice would be to first check the number of files on each hard disk and
- >see if the proportions are a bit more similar than they are when you
- >compare EA-DATA size with actual total file size.
- >
- And you've got to remember those cluster size games we play with DOS.
- The actual minimum is one cluster per file for the EA's. With HPFS that
- is 512 bytes, with DOS 5.0 it is 2kb for partitions less than 120M and
- 4-16kb as your partitions get larger and larger. I don't remember the
- numbers for DOS 4.0 and the work arounds for > 32M used by earlier
- systems but they were horrendously wasteful of disk space.
-
-
- Robert McBroom internet: rm3@ornl.gov
-