Difference between block size and cluster size

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
18
down vote

favorite
12












I've got a question concerning the block size and cluster size. Regarding to what I have read about that I assume the following:



  • The block size is the physical size of a block, mostly 512 bytes. There is no way to change this.

  • The cluster size is the minimal size of a block that is read and writable by the OS. If I create a new filesystem e.g. ext3, I can specify this minimal block size with the switch -b. Almost all programs like dumpe2fs, mke2fs use block size as an name for cluster size.

If I have got the following output:



$ stat test
File: `test'
Size: 13 Blocks: 4 IO Block: 2048 regular file
Device: 700h/1792d Inode: 15 Links: 1


Is it correct that the size is the actual space in bytes, blocks are the physically used blocks (512 bytes for each) and IO block relates to the block size specified when creating the FS?










share|improve this question



























    up vote
    18
    down vote

    favorite
    12












    I've got a question concerning the block size and cluster size. Regarding to what I have read about that I assume the following:



    • The block size is the physical size of a block, mostly 512 bytes. There is no way to change this.

    • The cluster size is the minimal size of a block that is read and writable by the OS. If I create a new filesystem e.g. ext3, I can specify this minimal block size with the switch -b. Almost all programs like dumpe2fs, mke2fs use block size as an name for cluster size.

    If I have got the following output:



    $ stat test
    File: `test'
    Size: 13 Blocks: 4 IO Block: 2048 regular file
    Device: 700h/1792d Inode: 15 Links: 1


    Is it correct that the size is the actual space in bytes, blocks are the physically used blocks (512 bytes for each) and IO block relates to the block size specified when creating the FS?










    share|improve this question

























      up vote
      18
      down vote

      favorite
      12









      up vote
      18
      down vote

      favorite
      12






      12





      I've got a question concerning the block size and cluster size. Regarding to what I have read about that I assume the following:



      • The block size is the physical size of a block, mostly 512 bytes. There is no way to change this.

      • The cluster size is the minimal size of a block that is read and writable by the OS. If I create a new filesystem e.g. ext3, I can specify this minimal block size with the switch -b. Almost all programs like dumpe2fs, mke2fs use block size as an name for cluster size.

      If I have got the following output:



      $ stat test
      File: `test'
      Size: 13 Blocks: 4 IO Block: 2048 regular file
      Device: 700h/1792d Inode: 15 Links: 1


      Is it correct that the size is the actual space in bytes, blocks are the physically used blocks (512 bytes for each) and IO block relates to the block size specified when creating the FS?










      share|improve this question















      I've got a question concerning the block size and cluster size. Regarding to what I have read about that I assume the following:



      • The block size is the physical size of a block, mostly 512 bytes. There is no way to change this.

      • The cluster size is the minimal size of a block that is read and writable by the OS. If I create a new filesystem e.g. ext3, I can specify this minimal block size with the switch -b. Almost all programs like dumpe2fs, mke2fs use block size as an name for cluster size.

      If I have got the following output:



      $ stat test
      File: `test'
      Size: 13 Blocks: 4 IO Block: 2048 regular file
      Device: 700h/1792d Inode: 15 Links: 1


      Is it correct that the size is the actual space in bytes, blocks are the physically used blocks (512 bytes for each) and IO block relates to the block size specified when creating the FS?







      filesystems ext3






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited Jun 4 '11 at 16:41









      Gilles

      522k12610401570




      522k12610401570










      asked Jun 4 '11 at 16:19









      pluckyDuck

      218126




      218126




















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          23
          down vote



          accepted










          I think you're confused, possibly because you've read several documents that use different terminology. Terms like “block size” and “cluster size” don't have a universal meaning, even within the context of filesystem literature.



          Filesystems



          For ext2 or ext3, the situation is relatively simple: each file occupies a certain number of blocks. All blocks on a given filesystem have the same size, usually one of 1024, 2048 or 4096 bytes. A file¹ whose size is between N blocks plus one byte and N+1 blocks occupies N+1 blocks. That block size is what you specify with mke2fs -b. There is no separate notion of clusters.



          The FAT filesystem used in particular by MS-DOS and early versions of Windows has a similarly simple space allocation. What ext2 calls blocks, FAT calls clusters; the concept is the same.



          Some filesystems have a more sophisticated allocation scheme: they have fixed-size blocks, but can use the same block to store the last few bytes of more than one file. This is known as block suballocation; Reiserfs and Btrfs do it, but not ext3 or even ext4.



          Utilities



          Unix utilities often use the word “block” to mean an arbitrarily-sized unit, typically 512 bytes or 1kB. This usage is unrelated to any particular filesystem or disk hardware. Historically, the 512B block did come about because disks and filesystems at the time often operated in 512B chunks, but the modern usage is just arbitrary. Traditional unix utilities and interfaces still use 512B blocks sometimes, though 1kB blocks are now often preferred. You need to check the documentation of each utility to know what size of block it's using (some have a switch, e.g. du -B or df -B on Linux).



          In the GNU/Linux stat utility, the blocks figure is the number of 512B blocks used by the file. The IO Block figure is the preferred size for file input-output, which is in principle unrelated but usually an indication of the underlying filesystem's block size (or cluster size if that's what you want to call it). Here, you have a 13-byte file, which is occupying one block on the ext3 filesystem with a block size of 2048; therefore the file occupies 4 512-byte units (called “blocks” by stat).



          Disks



          Most disks present an interface that shows the disk as a bunch of sectors. The disk can only write or read a whole sector, not individual bits or bytes. Most hard disks have 512-byte sectors, though 4kB-sector disks started appearing a couple of years ago.



          The disk sector size is not directly related to the filesystem block size, but having a block be a whole number of sectors is better for performance.



          ¹
          Exception: sparse files save space .






          share|improve this answer


















          • 2




            Thanks for your clarification. I arrived here due to such confusion caused by the ext2fsd tool for windows. Their command line options start: ´Usage: mke2fs [-c|-l filename] [-b block-size] [-C cluster-size]...´ Well, you see, both block and cluster size...
            – Bernhard Hiller
            Sep 7 '16 at 13:16










          • I'm also interested to know what's the difference between mke2fs' block-size and cluster-size. Does anyone know ?
            – X.LINK
            Feb 9 '17 at 1:28






          • 1




            @X.LINK It's explained in the man page. The cluster size is used by the bigalloc feature, which if I understand correctly makes access to large files faster at the expense of more wasted storage.
            – Gilles
            Feb 9 '17 at 10:24










          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "106"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader:
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          ,
          onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );













           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f14409%2fdifference-between-block-size-and-cluster-size%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes








          up vote
          23
          down vote



          accepted










          I think you're confused, possibly because you've read several documents that use different terminology. Terms like “block size” and “cluster size” don't have a universal meaning, even within the context of filesystem literature.



          Filesystems



          For ext2 or ext3, the situation is relatively simple: each file occupies a certain number of blocks. All blocks on a given filesystem have the same size, usually one of 1024, 2048 or 4096 bytes. A file¹ whose size is between N blocks plus one byte and N+1 blocks occupies N+1 blocks. That block size is what you specify with mke2fs -b. There is no separate notion of clusters.



          The FAT filesystem used in particular by MS-DOS and early versions of Windows has a similarly simple space allocation. What ext2 calls blocks, FAT calls clusters; the concept is the same.



          Some filesystems have a more sophisticated allocation scheme: they have fixed-size blocks, but can use the same block to store the last few bytes of more than one file. This is known as block suballocation; Reiserfs and Btrfs do it, but not ext3 or even ext4.



          Utilities



          Unix utilities often use the word “block” to mean an arbitrarily-sized unit, typically 512 bytes or 1kB. This usage is unrelated to any particular filesystem or disk hardware. Historically, the 512B block did come about because disks and filesystems at the time often operated in 512B chunks, but the modern usage is just arbitrary. Traditional unix utilities and interfaces still use 512B blocks sometimes, though 1kB blocks are now often preferred. You need to check the documentation of each utility to know what size of block it's using (some have a switch, e.g. du -B or df -B on Linux).



          In the GNU/Linux stat utility, the blocks figure is the number of 512B blocks used by the file. The IO Block figure is the preferred size for file input-output, which is in principle unrelated but usually an indication of the underlying filesystem's block size (or cluster size if that's what you want to call it). Here, you have a 13-byte file, which is occupying one block on the ext3 filesystem with a block size of 2048; therefore the file occupies 4 512-byte units (called “blocks” by stat).



          Disks



          Most disks present an interface that shows the disk as a bunch of sectors. The disk can only write or read a whole sector, not individual bits or bytes. Most hard disks have 512-byte sectors, though 4kB-sector disks started appearing a couple of years ago.



          The disk sector size is not directly related to the filesystem block size, but having a block be a whole number of sectors is better for performance.



          ¹
          Exception: sparse files save space .






          share|improve this answer


















          • 2




            Thanks for your clarification. I arrived here due to such confusion caused by the ext2fsd tool for windows. Their command line options start: ´Usage: mke2fs [-c|-l filename] [-b block-size] [-C cluster-size]...´ Well, you see, both block and cluster size...
            – Bernhard Hiller
            Sep 7 '16 at 13:16










          • I'm also interested to know what's the difference between mke2fs' block-size and cluster-size. Does anyone know ?
            – X.LINK
            Feb 9 '17 at 1:28






          • 1




            @X.LINK It's explained in the man page. The cluster size is used by the bigalloc feature, which if I understand correctly makes access to large files faster at the expense of more wasted storage.
            – Gilles
            Feb 9 '17 at 10:24














          up vote
          23
          down vote



          accepted










          I think you're confused, possibly because you've read several documents that use different terminology. Terms like “block size” and “cluster size” don't have a universal meaning, even within the context of filesystem literature.



          Filesystems



          For ext2 or ext3, the situation is relatively simple: each file occupies a certain number of blocks. All blocks on a given filesystem have the same size, usually one of 1024, 2048 or 4096 bytes. A file¹ whose size is between N blocks plus one byte and N+1 blocks occupies N+1 blocks. That block size is what you specify with mke2fs -b. There is no separate notion of clusters.



          The FAT filesystem used in particular by MS-DOS and early versions of Windows has a similarly simple space allocation. What ext2 calls blocks, FAT calls clusters; the concept is the same.



          Some filesystems have a more sophisticated allocation scheme: they have fixed-size blocks, but can use the same block to store the last few bytes of more than one file. This is known as block suballocation; Reiserfs and Btrfs do it, but not ext3 or even ext4.



          Utilities



          Unix utilities often use the word “block” to mean an arbitrarily-sized unit, typically 512 bytes or 1kB. This usage is unrelated to any particular filesystem or disk hardware. Historically, the 512B block did come about because disks and filesystems at the time often operated in 512B chunks, but the modern usage is just arbitrary. Traditional unix utilities and interfaces still use 512B blocks sometimes, though 1kB blocks are now often preferred. You need to check the documentation of each utility to know what size of block it's using (some have a switch, e.g. du -B or df -B on Linux).



          In the GNU/Linux stat utility, the blocks figure is the number of 512B blocks used by the file. The IO Block figure is the preferred size for file input-output, which is in principle unrelated but usually an indication of the underlying filesystem's block size (or cluster size if that's what you want to call it). Here, you have a 13-byte file, which is occupying one block on the ext3 filesystem with a block size of 2048; therefore the file occupies 4 512-byte units (called “blocks” by stat).



          Disks



          Most disks present an interface that shows the disk as a bunch of sectors. The disk can only write or read a whole sector, not individual bits or bytes. Most hard disks have 512-byte sectors, though 4kB-sector disks started appearing a couple of years ago.



          The disk sector size is not directly related to the filesystem block size, but having a block be a whole number of sectors is better for performance.



          ¹
          Exception: sparse files save space .






          share|improve this answer


















          • 2




            Thanks for your clarification. I arrived here due to such confusion caused by the ext2fsd tool for windows. Their command line options start: ´Usage: mke2fs [-c|-l filename] [-b block-size] [-C cluster-size]...´ Well, you see, both block and cluster size...
            – Bernhard Hiller
            Sep 7 '16 at 13:16










          • I'm also interested to know what's the difference between mke2fs' block-size and cluster-size. Does anyone know ?
            – X.LINK
            Feb 9 '17 at 1:28






          • 1




            @X.LINK It's explained in the man page. The cluster size is used by the bigalloc feature, which if I understand correctly makes access to large files faster at the expense of more wasted storage.
            – Gilles
            Feb 9 '17 at 10:24












          up vote
          23
          down vote



          accepted







          up vote
          23
          down vote



          accepted






          I think you're confused, possibly because you've read several documents that use different terminology. Terms like “block size” and “cluster size” don't have a universal meaning, even within the context of filesystem literature.



          Filesystems



          For ext2 or ext3, the situation is relatively simple: each file occupies a certain number of blocks. All blocks on a given filesystem have the same size, usually one of 1024, 2048 or 4096 bytes. A file¹ whose size is between N blocks plus one byte and N+1 blocks occupies N+1 blocks. That block size is what you specify with mke2fs -b. There is no separate notion of clusters.



          The FAT filesystem used in particular by MS-DOS and early versions of Windows has a similarly simple space allocation. What ext2 calls blocks, FAT calls clusters; the concept is the same.



          Some filesystems have a more sophisticated allocation scheme: they have fixed-size blocks, but can use the same block to store the last few bytes of more than one file. This is known as block suballocation; Reiserfs and Btrfs do it, but not ext3 or even ext4.



          Utilities



          Unix utilities often use the word “block” to mean an arbitrarily-sized unit, typically 512 bytes or 1kB. This usage is unrelated to any particular filesystem or disk hardware. Historically, the 512B block did come about because disks and filesystems at the time often operated in 512B chunks, but the modern usage is just arbitrary. Traditional unix utilities and interfaces still use 512B blocks sometimes, though 1kB blocks are now often preferred. You need to check the documentation of each utility to know what size of block it's using (some have a switch, e.g. du -B or df -B on Linux).



          In the GNU/Linux stat utility, the blocks figure is the number of 512B blocks used by the file. The IO Block figure is the preferred size for file input-output, which is in principle unrelated but usually an indication of the underlying filesystem's block size (or cluster size if that's what you want to call it). Here, you have a 13-byte file, which is occupying one block on the ext3 filesystem with a block size of 2048; therefore the file occupies 4 512-byte units (called “blocks” by stat).



          Disks



          Most disks present an interface that shows the disk as a bunch of sectors. The disk can only write or read a whole sector, not individual bits or bytes. Most hard disks have 512-byte sectors, though 4kB-sector disks started appearing a couple of years ago.



          The disk sector size is not directly related to the filesystem block size, but having a block be a whole number of sectors is better for performance.



          ¹
          Exception: sparse files save space .






          share|improve this answer














          I think you're confused, possibly because you've read several documents that use different terminology. Terms like “block size” and “cluster size” don't have a universal meaning, even within the context of filesystem literature.



          Filesystems



          For ext2 or ext3, the situation is relatively simple: each file occupies a certain number of blocks. All blocks on a given filesystem have the same size, usually one of 1024, 2048 or 4096 bytes. A file¹ whose size is between N blocks plus one byte and N+1 blocks occupies N+1 blocks. That block size is what you specify with mke2fs -b. There is no separate notion of clusters.



          The FAT filesystem used in particular by MS-DOS and early versions of Windows has a similarly simple space allocation. What ext2 calls blocks, FAT calls clusters; the concept is the same.



          Some filesystems have a more sophisticated allocation scheme: they have fixed-size blocks, but can use the same block to store the last few bytes of more than one file. This is known as block suballocation; Reiserfs and Btrfs do it, but not ext3 or even ext4.



          Utilities



          Unix utilities often use the word “block” to mean an arbitrarily-sized unit, typically 512 bytes or 1kB. This usage is unrelated to any particular filesystem or disk hardware. Historically, the 512B block did come about because disks and filesystems at the time often operated in 512B chunks, but the modern usage is just arbitrary. Traditional unix utilities and interfaces still use 512B blocks sometimes, though 1kB blocks are now often preferred. You need to check the documentation of each utility to know what size of block it's using (some have a switch, e.g. du -B or df -B on Linux).



          In the GNU/Linux stat utility, the blocks figure is the number of 512B blocks used by the file. The IO Block figure is the preferred size for file input-output, which is in principle unrelated but usually an indication of the underlying filesystem's block size (or cluster size if that's what you want to call it). Here, you have a 13-byte file, which is occupying one block on the ext3 filesystem with a block size of 2048; therefore the file occupies 4 512-byte units (called “blocks” by stat).



          Disks



          Most disks present an interface that shows the disk as a bunch of sectors. The disk can only write or read a whole sector, not individual bits or bytes. Most hard disks have 512-byte sectors, though 4kB-sector disks started appearing a couple of years ago.



          The disk sector size is not directly related to the filesystem block size, but having a block be a whole number of sectors is better for performance.



          ¹
          Exception: sparse files save space .







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Feb 20 at 16:12

























          answered Jun 4 '11 at 17:09









          Gilles

          522k12610401570




          522k12610401570







          • 2




            Thanks for your clarification. I arrived here due to such confusion caused by the ext2fsd tool for windows. Their command line options start: ´Usage: mke2fs [-c|-l filename] [-b block-size] [-C cluster-size]...´ Well, you see, both block and cluster size...
            – Bernhard Hiller
            Sep 7 '16 at 13:16










          • I'm also interested to know what's the difference between mke2fs' block-size and cluster-size. Does anyone know ?
            – X.LINK
            Feb 9 '17 at 1:28






          • 1




            @X.LINK It's explained in the man page. The cluster size is used by the bigalloc feature, which if I understand correctly makes access to large files faster at the expense of more wasted storage.
            – Gilles
            Feb 9 '17 at 10:24












          • 2




            Thanks for your clarification. I arrived here due to such confusion caused by the ext2fsd tool for windows. Their command line options start: ´Usage: mke2fs [-c|-l filename] [-b block-size] [-C cluster-size]...´ Well, you see, both block and cluster size...
            – Bernhard Hiller
            Sep 7 '16 at 13:16










          • I'm also interested to know what's the difference between mke2fs' block-size and cluster-size. Does anyone know ?
            – X.LINK
            Feb 9 '17 at 1:28






          • 1




            @X.LINK It's explained in the man page. The cluster size is used by the bigalloc feature, which if I understand correctly makes access to large files faster at the expense of more wasted storage.
            – Gilles
            Feb 9 '17 at 10:24







          2




          2




          Thanks for your clarification. I arrived here due to such confusion caused by the ext2fsd tool for windows. Their command line options start: ´Usage: mke2fs [-c|-l filename] [-b block-size] [-C cluster-size]...´ Well, you see, both block and cluster size...
          – Bernhard Hiller
          Sep 7 '16 at 13:16




          Thanks for your clarification. I arrived here due to such confusion caused by the ext2fsd tool for windows. Their command line options start: ´Usage: mke2fs [-c|-l filename] [-b block-size] [-C cluster-size]...´ Well, you see, both block and cluster size...
          – Bernhard Hiller
          Sep 7 '16 at 13:16












          I'm also interested to know what's the difference between mke2fs' block-size and cluster-size. Does anyone know ?
          – X.LINK
          Feb 9 '17 at 1:28




          I'm also interested to know what's the difference between mke2fs' block-size and cluster-size. Does anyone know ?
          – X.LINK
          Feb 9 '17 at 1:28




          1




          1




          @X.LINK It's explained in the man page. The cluster size is used by the bigalloc feature, which if I understand correctly makes access to large files faster at the expense of more wasted storage.
          – Gilles
          Feb 9 '17 at 10:24




          @X.LINK It's explained in the man page. The cluster size is used by the bigalloc feature, which if I understand correctly makes access to large files faster at the expense of more wasted storage.
          – Gilles
          Feb 9 '17 at 10:24

















           

          draft saved


          draft discarded















































           


          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f14409%2fdifference-between-block-size-and-cluster-size%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown






          Popular posts from this blog

          How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

          Bahrain

          Postfix configuration issue with fips on centos 7; mailgun relay