🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <dmurdoch.101.717942504@mast.queensu.ca> dmurdoch@mast.queensu.ca (Duncan Murdoch) writes:
>but when I tried Stacker a couple of years ago, it didn't do what I want.  
>In fact, changing my cluster size to 512 bytes gave me *more* compression 
>than Stacker gives.  What I'm proposing is essentially to change my cluster 
>size to 1 byte, avoiding the slack at the end of file allocations altogether.
>
>The disadvantage, of course, is that if I ever tried writing to one of these
>"disks" I could really get a mess of fragmented files; however, I'm willing 
>to make the disk read-only, and have a separate utility to create it.
>
>Duncan Murdoch
>dmurdoch@mast.queensu.ca

Since cluster sizes are multiples of 512 byte sectors, this does not seem
possible, but even if it were, fragmentation would be the least of your
problems - your FAT would then contain 1.5 bytes for each byte of allocated
file space, it would no longer fit in memory (unless you had a real tiny disk),
thus file access time would really bite....

Jens