NTFS cluster size vs FUSE blksize
Hello,
How is FUSE blksize related to NTFS cluster size?
Code:
$ sudo ntfsinfo -m /dev/sda9 | sed '/^MFT/{Q}'
Volume Information
Name of device: /dev/sda9
Device state: 11
Volume Name: dt-data
Volume State: 1
Volume Version: 3.1
Sector Size: 512
Cluster Size: 65536
Volume Size in Clusters: 13115519
vs
Code:
$ sudo mount /dev/sda9 /dt-data/
$ grep /dev/sda9 /proc/mounts
/dev/sda9 /dt-data fuseblk rw,relatime,user_id=0,group_id=0,allow_other,blksize=4096 0 0
$ tail -5 /var/log/daemon.log
Aug 6 13:29:34 debian ntfs-3g[5824]: Version 2010.3.6 integrated FUSE 27
Aug 6 13:29:34 debian ntfs-3g[5824]: Mounted /dev/sda9 (Read-Write, label "dt-data", NTFS 3.1)
Aug 6 13:29:34 debian ntfs-3g[5824]: Cmdline options: rw
Aug 6 13:29:34 debian ntfs-3g[5824]: Mount options: rw,silent,allow_other,nonempty,relatime,fsname=/dev/sda9,blkdev,blksize=4096
Aug 6 13:29:34 debian ntfs-3g[5824]: Ownership and permissions disabled, configuration type 1
Wouldn't it be more optimal to have a block size of fuseblk equal to cluster size of ntfs volume? How this block size is used internally?
Everything works the way it is now, so maybe even blksize doesn't matter at all?
I'll be grateful for detailed answers.
