Trash spec: directory size cache

[Alexander Larsson]

On tis, 2013-04-16 at 00:15 +0200, Ryan Lortie wrote:
> hi David,
> 
> On 2013-04-15 18:47, David Faure wrote:
> > 16950 15803468 Documents
> > 2467 15803582 Another_Folder
> 
> One thing I forgot to ask for a clarification on earlier, and certainly 
> something that we should spell out in the spec: what do we mean by 
> 'size'?  Sum of byte-sizes of all files, or 'disk space used' sizes of 
> all files and directories?
> 
> I guess the second one makes more sense, but the sizes you show here 
> don't seem to be multiples of disk block sizes, which is usually the 
> case for this type of sizes.
> 
> Your thoughts?

Sum of block sizes isn't a perfect measurement either. For one it
doesn't count the disk space of the directories themseleves, nor does it
handle things like tailpacking, hardlinks, etc.

However, it is more reliable than just the sum of the sizes (i.e. it
handles sparse files and many-small-files better), and its tractable to
compute, so I'd say go with it.