William L. Maltby wrote: > Yes, for the reasons the others posted. However, if you know the > "profile" of what you'll have on there, a substantial amount of space > can be recovered by 1) make sure you have large block size and 2) > reducing the i-nodes allocated to suit. > > Do a little thinking before you make these adjustments. I've used these > (along with the reducing root-reserved) for years w/o problems. But if > you get too radical and/or miss the reality with your profile > substantially, you'll be in a "rework" scenario. > >> <snip sig stuff> > i just used the tune2fs command to recover space on my secondary drive. Afterwards i unmounted the drive and ran a e2fsck -f <device>. No error was reported. Actually i used the tune2fs when the device was mounted so i just became paranoid. now the e2fsck reported no error does that mean my filesystem is still intact and no potential harm has been done ? when i remount the drive and run df -h i see an extra 6G of free space. does e2fsck also check for data corruption or data integrity ? William, can you please tell in details if more space can be recovered by using your two options and lastly is tweaking the default options of file system a good thing or bad thing ?