How can the File Sze be different then theFile Size on Disk.

insomica · Post by **insomica** » Mon Jun 02, 2003 3:32 pm

How can the size of a folder be different then the size on disk?

Does anyone know where to download phpBB2.2 beta

Michael · Post by **Michael** » Mon Jun 02, 2003 4:32 pm

"Size" represents the actual size of the folder. However, hard drives are divided up into "blocks" of a predetermined size (usually 20K-32K), and only one piece of a file can be saved per block; so files actually take up more space than what their actual size is, because "Size on disk" represents the amount of space the blocks used to store those files are taking up.

Example: a 1K text file will occupy a 20K block, so its "Size" is 1K but it's "Size on disk" will be 20K.

Timelessblur · Post by **Timelessblur** » Mon Jun 02, 2003 4:57 pm

you forgot one little thing 2. Computer HD are quite offen fragmented. Which only adds to the problem. since each fragment would eat up block space

insomica · Post by **insomica** » Mon Jun 02, 2003 5:11 pm

Yeah mine is really fragmented.
Just look...

Volume (C:)
Volume size = 6.32 GB
Cluster size = 4 KB
Used space = 4.66 GB
Free space = 1.66 GB
Percent free space = 26 %

Volume fragmentation
Total fragmentation = 22 %
File fragmentation = 41 %
Free space fragmentation = 4 %

File fragmentation
Total files = 36,063
Average file size = 175 KB
Total fragmented files = 6,484
Total excess fragments = 22,803
Average fragments per file = 1.63

Pagefile fragmentation
Pagefile size = 768 MB
Total fragments = 7

Folder fragmentation
Total folders = 3,081
Fragmented folders = 153
Excess folder fragments = 1,805

Master File Table (MFT) fragmentation
Total MFT size = 50 MB
MFT record count = 39,218
Percent MFT in use = 76 %
Total MFT fragments = 3

Michael · Post by **Michael** » Mon Jun 02, 2003 6:09 pm

Timelessblur wrote:you forgot one little thing 2. Computer HD are quite offen fragmented. Which only adds to the problem. since each fragment would eat up block space

Not really. It doesn't matter where the blocks are located, it just matters how many are taken up. A file will take up the same number of blocks whether they are contiguous or spread apart. Fragmenting has nothing to do with amount of space a file takes up; rather, it makes it take longer for applications to load and files to be loaded by applications, since they files are not located in contiguous blocks.

Matt · Post by **Matt** » Mon Jun 02, 2003 6:09 pm

If there is a great difference between the two numbers, you really should defrag your computer.....

fuuucckkers · Post by **fuuucckkers** » Mon Jun 02, 2003 6:49 pm

Michael wrote:"Size" represents the actual size of the folder. However, hard drives are divided up into "blocks" of a predetermined size (usually 20K-32K), and only one piece of a file can be saved per block; so files actually take up more space than what their actual size is, because "Size on disk" represents the amount of space the blocks used to store those files are taking up.

Example: a 1K text file will occupy a 20K block, so its "Size" is 1K but it's "Size on disk" will be 20K.

I was under the assumption that each block ("Cluster") was 4k.

I know that under FAT16 (Windows 95), it used 16k clusters.. so if you had an 8k text file for example... you're wasting away 8k of harddisk space.

Wheras with Windows 98 and Me... FAT32 introduced 4k blocks, which reduced wasted space considerably.

Now Michael... I could be wrong..although I'm not sure about 2000/XP because it's based on the old NT technology. And I'm not too sure what cluster size it uses. (NTFS .. not sure what it uses).

Am I right here? Or am I completely wrong and talking about something different ??

Michael · Post by **Michael** » Mon Jun 02, 2003 8:54 pm

x Wasted Mind x wrote:I was under the assumption that each block ("Cluster") was 4k.

I know that under FAT16 (Windows 95), it used 16k clusters.. so if you had an 8k text file for example... you're wasting away 8k of harddisk space.

Wheras with Windows 98 and Me... FAT32 introduced 4k blocks, which reduced wasted space considerably.

Now Michael... I could be wrong..although I'm not sure about 2000/XP because it's based on the old NT technology. And I'm not too sure what cluster size it uses. (NTFS .. not sure what it uses).

Am I right here? Or am I completely wrong and talking about something different ??

Oh no, you might be right, I wasn't completely sure, I was just taking a rough guess. My old Mac used 32K blocks, and I don't know what my new Mac has, but I think they are much smaller now. So you're probably right. (I guess I wasn't worrying too much about actual numbers, I was just trying to explain to insomica why the numbers differed.)

insomica · Post by **insomica** » Tue Jun 03, 2003 10:34 am

Volume (C:)
Volume size = 6.32 GB
Cluster size = 4 KB
Used space = 4.68 GB
Free space = 1.64 GB
Percent free space = 25 %

Volume fragmentation
Total fragmentation = 5 %
File fragmentation = 10 %
Free space fragmentation = 0 %

File fragmentation
Total files = 36,474
Average file size = 175 KB
Total fragmented files = 5
Total excess fragments = 12
Average fragments per file = 1.00

Pagefile fragmentation
Pagefile size = 768 MB
Total fragments = 7

Folder fragmentation
Total folders = 3,094
Fragmented folders = 1
Excess folder fragments = 0

Master File Table (MFT) fragmentation
Total MFT size = 50 MB
MFT record count = 39,644
Percent MFT in use = 77 %
Total MFT fragments = 3

==============
I defraged twice. So I guess the difference does not have to do with fragmentation.

Michael · Post by **Michael** » Tue Jun 03, 2003 4:30 pm

Michael wrote:Not really. It doesn't matter where the blocks are located, it just matters how many are taken up. A file will take up the same number of blocks whether they are contiguous or spread apart. Fragmenting has nothing to do with amount of space a file takes up; rather, it makes it take longer for applications to load and files to be loaded by applications, since they files are not located in contiguous blocks.

sigh... I believe I already noted that fragmentation has little to do with it.

What matters is this: if you have lots of tiny little files, the numbers may differ greatly.

insomica · Post by **insomica** » Tue Jun 03, 2003 4:51 pm

i was just confirming it....

Timelessblur · Post by **Timelessblur** » Wed Jun 04, 2003 9:56 am

well either way now you computer runs a lot better is a lot more stable

Matt · Post by **Matt** » Wed Jun 04, 2003 10:57 am

Additionally, the windows built-in defragmenter isnt as great as some other 3rd party programs. Personally, I just use the Windows one simply because I don't feel like getting other versions...but if you are really that concerned, you can try those.

Big-O Software

How can the File Sze be different then theFile Size on Disk.

How can the File Sze be different then theFile Size on Disk.

Who is online