It’s good you found some pathological examples, but I’m at the end of my rope here.
You can use these examples and the other information you gathered so far and ask specifically how these size discrepancies can be explained and maybe mitigated. I suggest more specialized communities for this such as !linux@lemmy.ml, !linux@programming.dev, !linux@lemmy.world, !linux4noobs@programming.dev, !linux4noobs@lemmy.world, !linuxquestions@lemmy.zip.
bleistift2@sopuli.xyz 8 hours ago
These differences really are insane. Maybe someone more knowledgeable can comment on why different tools differ so wildly in the total size they report.
I have never used BTRFS, so I must resort to forwarding googled results like this one.
Could you try
compsize ~? If thePerccolumn is much lower than 100% or theDisk Usagecolumn is much lower than theUncompressedcolumn, then you have some BTRFS-specific file-size reduction on your hands, which your external exFAT naturally can’t replicate.sbeak@sopuli.xyz 8 hours ago
percentage of total is 83% (292G vs uncompressed 349G apparently)