Is there a way to make ext-filesystems use less space for themselves in Linux?

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





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;







up vote
7
down vote

favorite
2












I have a bunch of external and internal HDDs that I use on a Linux system. I only have Linux systems, so using a Linux file-system would only make sense, right? However I'm currently using NTFS everywhere, because it gives me the most usable space out of HDDs.



I would like to switch to Linux file-systems now though, mostly because of permissions and compability (e.g. I can't get my LUKS encrypted NTFS partition to resize under Linux, keeps telling me to chkdsk under Windows).



However when I formatted those HDDs I tried out a bunch of different filesystems and every Linux filesystem, even ext2 which as far as I know has no journaling, used a lot of space for itself. I don't recall exact values, but it was over 100GB that NTFS got me more on a 2TB HDD, which is a lot.



So my question is: Is there a way to make ext-filesystems use less space for themselves? Or is there another filesystem (I've tried ext2, ext3, ext4, NTFS and vfat - None of them came even close to the usable space NTFS offered me) with perfect Linux support and great usable space?



I'd love to hear about how and why filesystems (especially ext2 which has no journaling) use that much more space than NTFS and I don't know where else to ask. I'd mostly prefer a way to use ext4 without journaling and anything else that uses up this much space, if that's possible.




linux filesystems ntfs ext4 ext2




share|improve this question





















  • Have you seen this thread?
    – JakeGould
    8 hours ago






  • 1




    I have, and it explained what uses up the extra space but the difference between NTFS and ext is MUCH bigger than between reiserfs and ext, and I'm wondering if there is any way to make it smaller. For example on a 1TB HDD I'm able to use 989GB with NTFS. ext4 would give me around 909GB.
    – confetti
    8 hours ago










  • Fair enough. Decent question and the answer is enlightening too.
    – JakeGould
    4 hours ago
















up vote
7
down vote

favorite
2












I have a bunch of external and internal HDDs that I use on a Linux system. I only have Linux systems, so using a Linux file-system would only make sense, right? However I'm currently using NTFS everywhere, because it gives me the most usable space out of HDDs.



I would like to switch to Linux file-systems now though, mostly because of permissions and compability (e.g. I can't get my LUKS encrypted NTFS partition to resize under Linux, keeps telling me to chkdsk under Windows).



However when I formatted those HDDs I tried out a bunch of different filesystems and every Linux filesystem, even ext2 which as far as I know has no journaling, used a lot of space for itself. I don't recall exact values, but it was over 100GB that NTFS got me more on a 2TB HDD, which is a lot.



So my question is: Is there a way to make ext-filesystems use less space for themselves? Or is there another filesystem (I've tried ext2, ext3, ext4, NTFS and vfat - None of them came even close to the usable space NTFS offered me) with perfect Linux support and great usable space?



I'd love to hear about how and why filesystems (especially ext2 which has no journaling) use that much more space than NTFS and I don't know where else to ask. I'd mostly prefer a way to use ext4 without journaling and anything else that uses up this much space, if that's possible.




linux filesystems ntfs ext4 ext2




share|improve this question





















  • Have you seen this thread?
    – JakeGould
    8 hours ago






  • 1




    I have, and it explained what uses up the extra space but the difference between NTFS and ext is MUCH bigger than between reiserfs and ext, and I'm wondering if there is any way to make it smaller. For example on a 1TB HDD I'm able to use 989GB with NTFS. ext4 would give me around 909GB.
    – confetti
    8 hours ago










  • Fair enough. Decent question and the answer is enlightening too.
    – JakeGould
    4 hours ago












up vote
7
down vote

favorite
2









up vote
7
down vote

favorite
2






2





I have a bunch of external and internal HDDs that I use on a Linux system. I only have Linux systems, so using a Linux file-system would only make sense, right? However I'm currently using NTFS everywhere, because it gives me the most usable space out of HDDs.



I would like to switch to Linux file-systems now though, mostly because of permissions and compability (e.g. I can't get my LUKS encrypted NTFS partition to resize under Linux, keeps telling me to chkdsk under Windows).



However when I formatted those HDDs I tried out a bunch of different filesystems and every Linux filesystem, even ext2 which as far as I know has no journaling, used a lot of space for itself. I don't recall exact values, but it was over 100GB that NTFS got me more on a 2TB HDD, which is a lot.



So my question is: Is there a way to make ext-filesystems use less space for themselves? Or is there another filesystem (I've tried ext2, ext3, ext4, NTFS and vfat - None of them came even close to the usable space NTFS offered me) with perfect Linux support and great usable space?



I'd love to hear about how and why filesystems (especially ext2 which has no journaling) use that much more space than NTFS and I don't know where else to ask. I'd mostly prefer a way to use ext4 without journaling and anything else that uses up this much space, if that's possible.




linux filesystems ntfs ext4 ext2




share|improve this question













I have a bunch of external and internal HDDs that I use on a Linux system. I only have Linux systems, so using a Linux file-system would only make sense, right? However I'm currently using NTFS everywhere, because it gives me the most usable space out of HDDs.



I would like to switch to Linux file-systems now though, mostly because of permissions and compability (e.g. I can't get my LUKS encrypted NTFS partition to resize under Linux, keeps telling me to chkdsk under Windows).



However when I formatted those HDDs I tried out a bunch of different filesystems and every Linux filesystem, even ext2 which as far as I know has no journaling, used a lot of space for itself. I don't recall exact values, but it was over 100GB that NTFS got me more on a 2TB HDD, which is a lot.



So my question is: Is there a way to make ext-filesystems use less space for themselves? Or is there another filesystem (I've tried ext2, ext3, ext4, NTFS and vfat - None of them came even close to the usable space NTFS offered me) with perfect Linux support and great usable space?



I'd love to hear about how and why filesystems (especially ext2 which has no journaling) use that much more space than NTFS and I don't know where else to ask. I'd mostly prefer a way to use ext4 without journaling and anything else that uses up this much space, if that's possible.





linux filesystems ntfs ext4 ext2





share|improve this question












share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 8 hours ago









JakeGould

28.5k1085125




28.5k1085125









asked 8 hours ago









confetti

3309




3309











  • Have you seen this thread?
    – JakeGould
    8 hours ago






  • 1




    I have, and it explained what uses up the extra space but the difference between NTFS and ext is MUCH bigger than between reiserfs and ext, and I'm wondering if there is any way to make it smaller. For example on a 1TB HDD I'm able to use 989GB with NTFS. ext4 would give me around 909GB.
    – confetti
    8 hours ago










  • Fair enough. Decent question and the answer is enlightening too.
    – JakeGould
    4 hours ago
















  • Have you seen this thread?
    – JakeGould
    8 hours ago






  • 1




    I have, and it explained what uses up the extra space but the difference between NTFS and ext is MUCH bigger than between reiserfs and ext, and I'm wondering if there is any way to make it smaller. For example on a 1TB HDD I'm able to use 989GB with NTFS. ext4 would give me around 909GB.
    – confetti
    8 hours ago










  • Fair enough. Decent question and the answer is enlightening too.
    – JakeGould
    4 hours ago















Have you seen this thread?
– JakeGould
8 hours ago




Have you seen this thread?
– JakeGould
8 hours ago




1




1




I have, and it explained what uses up the extra space but the difference between NTFS and ext is MUCH bigger than between reiserfs and ext, and I'm wondering if there is any way to make it smaller. For example on a 1TB HDD I'm able to use 989GB with NTFS. ext4 would give me around 909GB.
– confetti
8 hours ago




I have, and it explained what uses up the extra space but the difference between NTFS and ext is MUCH bigger than between reiserfs and ext, and I'm wondering if there is any way to make it smaller. For example on a 1TB HDD I'm able to use 989GB with NTFS. ext4 would give me around 909GB.
– confetti
8 hours ago












Fair enough. Decent question and the answer is enlightening too.
– JakeGould
4 hours ago




Fair enough. Decent question and the answer is enlightening too.
– JakeGould
4 hours ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
13
down vote













By default, ext2 and its successors reserve 5% of the filesystem for use by the root user. This reduces fragmentation, and makes it less likely that the administrator or any root-owned daemons will be left with no space to work in.



These reserved blocks prevent programs not running as root from filling your disk.
Whether these considerations justify the loss of capacity depends on what the filesystem is used for.



The 5% amount was set in the 1980s when disks were much smaller, but was just left as-is. Nowadays 1% is probably enough for system stability.



The reservation can be changed using the -m option of the tune2fs command:



tune2fs -m 0 /dev/sda1


This will set the reserved blocks percentage to 0% (0 blocks).



To get the current value (among others), use the command :



tune2fs -l <device>





share|improve this answer























  • This would explain the immense difference in usable space perfectly (as 5% of 2TB are 100GB). The disks won't be used for anything as root or system-file related, so I think it would be save to disable this. I got a question though: How do root-owned programs know there is more free space than non-root programs? Running df as non-root vs. root shows no difference.
    – confetti
    8 hours ago






  • 3




    @confetti: Because the VFS doesn't reject their attempts to write to the disk with an error (until the volume is actually full, of course).
    – Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams
    8 hours ago











  • Linux handles this internally by the process uid or its group. I suppose that this is done in the disk driver when allocating space, on a much lower level than the one df operates in.
    – harrymc
    8 hours ago










  • So there is no way, as the root user, to tell how much free space I actually have? What happens when root actually makes use of these 5%? Is there no way to "track" this?
    – confetti
    8 hours ago










  • gnome-system-monitor has a column called free in its file system monitor. That shows me 26.5GB for a 59GB ext4 SSD partition at the moment, while available reports 23.5GB. I assume this is the 5% difference?
    – confetti
    8 hours ago










Your Answer







StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "3"
;
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: true,
noModals: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);








 

draft saved


draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f1346350%2fis-there-a-way-to-make-ext-filesystems-use-less-space-for-themselves-in-linux%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

















1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
13
down vote













By default, ext2 and its successors reserve 5% of the filesystem for use by the root user. This reduces fragmentation, and makes it less likely that the administrator or any root-owned daemons will be left with no space to work in.



These reserved blocks prevent programs not running as root from filling your disk.
Whether these considerations justify the loss of capacity depends on what the filesystem is used for.



The 5% amount was set in the 1980s when disks were much smaller, but was just left as-is. Nowadays 1% is probably enough for system stability.



The reservation can be changed using the -m option of the tune2fs command:



tune2fs -m 0 /dev/sda1


This will set the reserved blocks percentage to 0% (0 blocks).



To get the current value (among others), use the command :



tune2fs -l <device>





share|improve this answer























  • This would explain the immense difference in usable space perfectly (as 5% of 2TB are 100GB). The disks won't be used for anything as root or system-file related, so I think it would be save to disable this. I got a question though: How do root-owned programs know there is more free space than non-root programs? Running df as non-root vs. root shows no difference.
    – confetti
    8 hours ago






  • 3




    @confetti: Because the VFS doesn't reject their attempts to write to the disk with an error (until the volume is actually full, of course).
    – Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams
    8 hours ago











  • Linux handles this internally by the process uid or its group. I suppose that this is done in the disk driver when allocating space, on a much lower level than the one df operates in.
    – harrymc
    8 hours ago










  • So there is no way, as the root user, to tell how much free space I actually have? What happens when root actually makes use of these 5%? Is there no way to "track" this?
    – confetti
    8 hours ago










  • gnome-system-monitor has a column called free in its file system monitor. That shows me 26.5GB for a 59GB ext4 SSD partition at the moment, while available reports 23.5GB. I assume this is the 5% difference?
    – confetti
    8 hours ago














up vote
13
down vote













By default, ext2 and its successors reserve 5% of the filesystem for use by the root user. This reduces fragmentation, and makes it less likely that the administrator or any root-owned daemons will be left with no space to work in.



These reserved blocks prevent programs not running as root from filling your disk.
Whether these considerations justify the loss of capacity depends on what the filesystem is used for.



The 5% amount was set in the 1980s when disks were much smaller, but was just left as-is. Nowadays 1% is probably enough for system stability.



The reservation can be changed using the -m option of the tune2fs command:



tune2fs -m 0 /dev/sda1


This will set the reserved blocks percentage to 0% (0 blocks).



To get the current value (among others), use the command :



tune2fs -l <device>





share|improve this answer























  • This would explain the immense difference in usable space perfectly (as 5% of 2TB are 100GB). The disks won't be used for anything as root or system-file related, so I think it would be save to disable this. I got a question though: How do root-owned programs know there is more free space than non-root programs? Running df as non-root vs. root shows no difference.
    – confetti
    8 hours ago






  • 3




    @confetti: Because the VFS doesn't reject their attempts to write to the disk with an error (until the volume is actually full, of course).
    – Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams
    8 hours ago











  • Linux handles this internally by the process uid or its group. I suppose that this is done in the disk driver when allocating space, on a much lower level than the one df operates in.
    – harrymc
    8 hours ago










  • So there is no way, as the root user, to tell how much free space I actually have? What happens when root actually makes use of these 5%? Is there no way to "track" this?
    – confetti
    8 hours ago










  • gnome-system-monitor has a column called free in its file system monitor. That shows me 26.5GB for a 59GB ext4 SSD partition at the moment, while available reports 23.5GB. I assume this is the 5% difference?
    – confetti
    8 hours ago












up vote
13
down vote










up vote
13
down vote









By default, ext2 and its successors reserve 5% of the filesystem for use by the root user. This reduces fragmentation, and makes it less likely that the administrator or any root-owned daemons will be left with no space to work in.



These reserved blocks prevent programs not running as root from filling your disk.
Whether these considerations justify the loss of capacity depends on what the filesystem is used for.



The 5% amount was set in the 1980s when disks were much smaller, but was just left as-is. Nowadays 1% is probably enough for system stability.



The reservation can be changed using the -m option of the tune2fs command:



tune2fs -m 0 /dev/sda1


This will set the reserved blocks percentage to 0% (0 blocks).



To get the current value (among others), use the command :



tune2fs -l <device>





share|improve this answer















By default, ext2 and its successors reserve 5% of the filesystem for use by the root user. This reduces fragmentation, and makes it less likely that the administrator or any root-owned daemons will be left with no space to work in.



These reserved blocks prevent programs not running as root from filling your disk.
Whether these considerations justify the loss of capacity depends on what the filesystem is used for.



The 5% amount was set in the 1980s when disks were much smaller, but was just left as-is. Nowadays 1% is probably enough for system stability.



The reservation can be changed using the -m option of the tune2fs command:



tune2fs -m 0 /dev/sda1


This will set the reserved blocks percentage to 0% (0 blocks).



To get the current value (among others), use the command :



tune2fs -l <device>






share|improve this answer















share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 8 hours ago


























answered 8 hours ago









harrymc

232k9234512




232k9234512











  • This would explain the immense difference in usable space perfectly (as 5% of 2TB are 100GB). The disks won't be used for anything as root or system-file related, so I think it would be save to disable this. I got a question though: How do root-owned programs know there is more free space than non-root programs? Running df as non-root vs. root shows no difference.
    – confetti
    8 hours ago






  • 3




    @confetti: Because the VFS doesn't reject their attempts to write to the disk with an error (until the volume is actually full, of course).
    – Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams
    8 hours ago











  • Linux handles this internally by the process uid or its group. I suppose that this is done in the disk driver when allocating space, on a much lower level than the one df operates in.
    – harrymc
    8 hours ago










  • So there is no way, as the root user, to tell how much free space I actually have? What happens when root actually makes use of these 5%? Is there no way to "track" this?
    – confetti
    8 hours ago










  • gnome-system-monitor has a column called free in its file system monitor. That shows me 26.5GB for a 59GB ext4 SSD partition at the moment, while available reports 23.5GB. I assume this is the 5% difference?
    – confetti
    8 hours ago
















  • This would explain the immense difference in usable space perfectly (as 5% of 2TB are 100GB). The disks won't be used for anything as root or system-file related, so I think it would be save to disable this. I got a question though: How do root-owned programs know there is more free space than non-root programs? Running df as non-root vs. root shows no difference.
    – confetti
    8 hours ago






  • 3




    @confetti: Because the VFS doesn't reject their attempts to write to the disk with an error (until the volume is actually full, of course).
    – Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams
    8 hours ago











  • Linux handles this internally by the process uid or its group. I suppose that this is done in the disk driver when allocating space, on a much lower level than the one df operates in.
    – harrymc
    8 hours ago










  • So there is no way, as the root user, to tell how much free space I actually have? What happens when root actually makes use of these 5%? Is there no way to "track" this?
    – confetti
    8 hours ago










  • gnome-system-monitor has a column called free in its file system monitor. That shows me 26.5GB for a 59GB ext4 SSD partition at the moment, while available reports 23.5GB. I assume this is the 5% difference?
    – confetti
    8 hours ago















This would explain the immense difference in usable space perfectly (as 5% of 2TB are 100GB). The disks won't be used for anything as root or system-file related, so I think it would be save to disable this. I got a question though: How do root-owned programs know there is more free space than non-root programs? Running df as non-root vs. root shows no difference.
– confetti
8 hours ago




This would explain the immense difference in usable space perfectly (as 5% of 2TB are 100GB). The disks won't be used for anything as root or system-file related, so I think it would be save to disable this. I got a question though: How do root-owned programs know there is more free space than non-root programs? Running df as non-root vs. root shows no difference.
– confetti
8 hours ago




3




3




@confetti: Because the VFS doesn't reject their attempts to write to the disk with an error (until the volume is actually full, of course).
– Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams
8 hours ago





@confetti: Because the VFS doesn't reject their attempts to write to the disk with an error (until the volume is actually full, of course).
– Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams
8 hours ago













Linux handles this internally by the process uid or its group. I suppose that this is done in the disk driver when allocating space, on a much lower level than the one df operates in.
– harrymc
8 hours ago




Linux handles this internally by the process uid or its group. I suppose that this is done in the disk driver when allocating space, on a much lower level than the one df operates in.
– harrymc
8 hours ago












So there is no way, as the root user, to tell how much free space I actually have? What happens when root actually makes use of these 5%? Is there no way to "track" this?
– confetti
8 hours ago




So there is no way, as the root user, to tell how much free space I actually have? What happens when root actually makes use of these 5%? Is there no way to "track" this?
– confetti
8 hours ago












gnome-system-monitor has a column called free in its file system monitor. That shows me 26.5GB for a 59GB ext4 SSD partition at the moment, while available reports 23.5GB. I assume this is the 5% difference?
– confetti
8 hours ago




gnome-system-monitor has a column called free in its file system monitor. That shows me 26.5GB for a 59GB ext4 SSD partition at the moment, while available reports 23.5GB. I assume this is the 5% difference?
– confetti
8 hours ago












 

draft saved


draft discarded


























 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f1346350%2fis-there-a-way-to-make-ext-filesystems-use-less-space-for-themselves-in-linux%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest
































































Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is the equation of a 3D cone with generalised tilt?

Image
Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP up vote 2 down vote favorite What is the equation of a 3D cone with generalized tilt? I've noticed that in most equations given to represent a cone, there is no parameter which defines the tilt of the cone in 3D space and that most of them have their point at the origin $(0,0,0)$ - I was wondering if anyone could give me a more generalized cone equation for a cone in any position in 3D space 3d share | cite | improve this question edited Jul 25 '16 at 0:05 ervx 9,425 3 13 36 asked Jul 24 '16 at 15:38 Charlene 11 2 2 Welcome to Math.SE! Could you please explain a few things to help people give an answer useful to you: 1. What do you mean by "generalized tilt"? 2. Are you asking about a right circular cone? Does the angle at the vertex matter? 3. What form of answer (implicit, parametric...?) are you looking for? 4. If this is homework, what tools do you have available, an...
Read more

Relationship between determinant of matrix and determinant of adjoint?

Image
Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP up vote 2 down vote favorite We are studying adjoints in class, and I was curious if there is a relationship between the determinant of matrix A, and the determinant of the adjoint of matrix A? I assume there would be a relationship because finding the adjoint requires creating a cofactor matrix and then transposing it. linear-algebra determinant adjoint-operators share | cite | improve this question asked Nov 17 '17 at 17:32 CluelessCoder 32 5 For a square matrix $A$ of order $n$, we have $A(operatornameadj A)=(operatornameadj A)A=|A|I_n$ where $I_n$ is the identity matrix of order $n$. This should tell you about the determinant of the adjoint in terms of that of $A$ (use multiplicative property and other elementary properties of determinants). – Prasun Biswas Nov 17 '17 at 17:35 1 @CluelessCoder: see here: math.stackexchange.com/questions/516127/…...
Read more

Color the edges and diagonals of a regular polygon

Image
Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP up vote 5 down vote favorite 1 Here is the problem: For what $n$ is it possible to color the edges and diagonals of an $n$-side regular polygon with $dfracbinomn23$ colors, such that you use every color exactly three times and for every color the three segments (edges or diagonals) with that color form a triangle? Trivially $nequiv 0 text or 1 pmod3$. I can also prove that if the statement is true for $k$ than it is true for $3k$ as well. How to finish? Please help! Thanks combinatorial-geometry share | cite | improve this question edited Aug 6 at 21:57 alcana 118 4 asked Aug 6 at 21:15 Leo Gardner 356 11 Even assuming "polyhpn" in the title is a typo for polygon , it is unclear what you mean by "the edges and sides". Aren't the side of a regular polygon the same as the edges? A regular $n$-sided polygon has $n$ edges. – hardmath Aug 6 at 21:20 3 $n$ ne...
Read more