Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.glorb.com!usenet.stanford.edu!panix!MIX!Blackbird
From: billy@MIX.COM
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system
Subject: Re: why does cloned mavericks drive use 5 gb less space than the original?
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 22:30:38 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <menfqe$ehe$1@reader2.panix.com>
References: <2015032214264664806-anon@anonumostorg> <slrnmgue04.bk5.tmo1138@davidjr-macpro.local>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix5.panix.com
X-Trace: reader2.panix.com 1427063438 14894 166.84.1.5 (22 Mar 2015 22:30:38 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 22:30:38 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: csiph.com comp.sys.mac.system:71845

tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.com> writes, quoting
Bill F <anon@anonumost.org>:

> > I make a bootable backup of my 120gb MBA SSD to a 120gb external drive 
> > partition.  The SSD then reports 7gb free space and the external drive 
> > reports 12gb free.  When I compare all folder sizes their total is 
> > within 500mb of each other.  I can't understand why the clone has so 
> > much more free space than the original.  All trashes are empty on both 
> > drives.  
> 
> No recovery partion?

The recovery partition is only 650MB.  Maybe the external drive is
using a block size smaller than 4096 bytes?

Billy Y..
-- 
        sub     #'9+1   ,r0             ; convert ascii byte
	add     #9.+1   ,r0             ; to an integer
	bcc     20$                     ; not a number